So this is more of a theoretical question. C++ and languages (in)directly based on it (Java, C#, PHP) have shortcut operators for assigning the result of most binary operators to the first operand, such as
a += 3; // for a = a + 3
a *= 3; // for a = a * 3;
a <<= 3; // for a = a << 3;
but when I want to toggle a boolean expression I always find myself writing something like
a = !a;
which gets annoying when a is a long expression like.
this.dataSource.trackedObject.currentValue.booleanFlag =
!this.dataSource.trackedObject.currentValue.booleanFlag;
(yeah, Demeter's Law, I know).
So I was wondering, is there any language with a unary boolean toggle operator that would allow me to abbreviate a = !a without repeating the expression for a, for example
!=a;
// or
a!!;
Let's assume that our language has a proper boolean type (like bool in C++) and that a is of that type (so no C-style int a = TRUE).
If you can find a documented source, I'd also be interested to learn whether e.g. the C++ designers have considered adding an operator like that when bool became a built-in type and if so, why they decided against it.
(Note: I know that some people are of the opinion that assignment should not use
= and that ++ and += are not useful operators but design flaws; let's just assume I'm happy with them and focus on why they would not extend to bools).
Toggling the boolean bit
... that would allow me to abbreviate a = !a without repeating the
expression for a ...
This approach is not really a pure "mutating flip" operator, but does fulfill your criteria above; the right hand side of the expression does not involve the variable itself.
Any language with a boolean XOR assignment (e.g. ^=) would allow flipping the current value of a variable, say a, by means of XOR assignment to true:
// type of a is bool
a ^= true; // if a was false, it is now true,
// if a was true, it is now false
As pointed out by #cmaster in the comments below, the above assumes a is of type bool, and not e.g. an integer or a pointer. If a is in fact something else (e.g. something non-bool evaluating to a "truthy" or "falsy" value, with a bit representation that is not 0b1 or 0b0, respectively), the above does not hold.
For a concrete example, Java is a language where this is well-defined and not subject to any silent conversions. Quoting #Boann's comment from below:
In Java, ^ and ^= have explicitly defined behavior for booleans
and for integers
(15.22.2.
Boolean Logical Operators &, ^, and | ), where either both sides
of the operator must be booleans, or both sides must be integers.
There's no silent conversion between those types. So it's not going to
silently malfunction if a is declared as an integer, but rather,
give a compile error. So a ^= true; is safe and well-defined in
Java.
Swift: toggle()
As of Swift 4.2, the following evolution proposal has been accepted and implemented:
SE-0199: Adding toggle to Bool
This adds a native toggle() function to the Bool type in Swift.
toggle()
Toggles the Boolean variable’s value.
Declaration
mutating func toggle()
Discussion
Use this method to toggle a Boolean value from true to false or
from false to true.
var bools = [true, false]
bools[0].toggle() // bools == [false, false]
This is not an operator, per se, but does allow a language native approach for boolean toggling.
In C++ it is possible to commit the Cardinal Sin of redefining the meaning of operators. With this in mind, and a little bit of ADL, all we need to do in order to unleash mayhem on our user base is this:
#include <iostream>
namespace notstd
{
// define a flag type
struct invert_flag { };
// make it available in all translation units at zero cost
static constexpr auto invert = invert_flag{};
// for any T, (T << invert) ~= (T = !T)
template<class T>
constexpr T& operator<<(T& x, invert_flag)
{
x = !x;
return x;
}
}
int main()
{
// unleash Hell
using notstd::invert;
int a = 6;
std::cout << a << std::endl;
// let confusion reign amongst our hapless maintainers
a << invert;
std::cout << a << std::endl;
a << invert;
std::cout << a << std::endl;
auto b = false;
std::cout << b << std::endl;
b << invert;
std::cout << b << std::endl;
}
expected output:
6
0
1
0
1
As long as we include assembly language...
FORTH
INVERT for a bitwise complement.
0= for a logical (true/false) complement.
Decrementing a C99 bool will have the desired effect, as will incrementing or decrementing the bit types supported in some tiny-microcontroller dialects (which from what I've observed treat bits as single-bit wide bitfields, so all even numbers get truncated to 0 and all odd numbers to 1). I wouldn't particularly recommend such usage, in part because I'm not a big fan of the bool type semantics [IMHO, the type should have specified that a bool to which any value other than 0 or 1 is stored may behave when read as though it holds an Unspecified (not necessarily consistent) integer value; if a program is trying to store an integer value that isn't known to be 0 or 1, it should use !! on it first].
Assembly language
NOT eax
See https://www.tutorialspoint.com/assembly_programming/assembly_logical_instructions.htm
I'm assuming you're not going to be choosing a language based solely upon this :-) In any case, you can do this in C++ with something like:
inline void makenot(bool &b) { b = !b; }
See the following complete program for example:
#include <iostream>
inline void makenot(bool &b) { b = !b; }
inline void outBool(bool b) { std::cout << (b ? "true" : "false") << '\n'; }
int main() {
bool this_dataSource_trackedObject_currentValue_booleanFlag = false;
outBool(this_dataSource_trackedObject_currentValue_booleanFlag);
makenot(this_dataSource_trackedObject_currentValue_booleanFlag);
outBool(this_dataSource_trackedObject_currentValue_booleanFlag);
makenot(this_dataSource_trackedObject_currentValue_booleanFlag);
outBool(this_dataSource_trackedObject_currentValue_booleanFlag);
}
This outputs, as expected:
false
true
false
PostScript, being a concatenative, stack-oriented language like Forth, has a unary toggle, not. The not operator toggles the value on top of the stack. For example,
true % push true onto the stack
not % invert the top of stack
% the top of stack is now false
See the PostScript Language Reference Manual (pdf), p. 458.
Visual Basic.Net supports this via an extension method.
Define the extension method like so:
<Extension>
Public Sub Flip(ByRef someBool As Boolean)
someBool = Not someBool
End Sub
And then call it like this:
Dim someVariable As Boolean
someVariable = True
someVariable.Flip
So, your original example would look something like:
me.DataSource.TrackedObject.CurrentValue.BooleanFlag.Flip
This question is indeed interesting from a purely theoretical standpoint. Setting aside whether or not a unary, mutating boolean toggle operator would be useful, or why many languages have opted to not provide one, I ventured on a quest to see whether or not it indeed exists.
TL;DR apparently no, but Swift lets you implement one. If you'd only like to see how it's done, you can scroll to the bottom of this answer.
After a (quick) search to features of various languages, I'd feel safe to say that no language has implemented this operator as a strict mutating in-place operation (do correct me if you find one). So the next thing would be to see if there are languages that let you build one. What this would require is two things:
being able to implement (unary) operators with functions
allowing said functions to have pass-by-reference arguments (so that they may mutate their arguments directly)
Many languages will immediately get ruled out for not supporting either or both of these requirements. Java for one does not allow operator overloading (or custom operators) and in addition, all primitive types are passed by value. Go has no support for operator overloading (except by hacks) whatsoever. Rust only allows operator overloading for custom types. You could almost achieve this in Scala, which let's you use very creatively named functions and also omit parentheses, but sadly there's no pass-by-reference. Fortran gets very close in that it allows for custom operators, but specifically forbids them from having inout parameters (which are allowed in normal functions and subroutines).
There is however at least one language that ticks all the necessary boxes: Swift. While some people have linked to the upcoming .toggle() member function, you can also write your own operator, which indeed supports inout arguments. Lo and behold:
prefix operator ^
prefix func ^ (b: inout Bool) {
b = !b
}
var foo = true
print(foo)
// true
^foo
print(foo)
// false
In Rust, you can create your own trait to extend the types that implement the Not trait:
use std::ops::Not;
use std::mem::replace;
trait Flip {
fn flip(&mut self);
}
impl<T> Flip for T
where
T: Not<Output = T> + Default,
{
fn flip(&mut self) {
*self = replace(self, Default::default()).not();
}
}
#[test]
fn it_works() {
let mut b = true;
b.flip();
assert_eq!(b, false);
}
You can also use ^= true as suggested, and in the case of Rust, there is no possible issue to do this because false is not a "disguised" integer like in C or C++:
fn main() {
let mut b = true;
b ^= true;
assert_eq!(b, false);
let mut b = false;
b ^= true;
assert_eq!(b, true);
}
In Python
Python supports such functionality, if the variable has bool type (which is True or False) with the exclusive or (^=) operator:
a = False
a ^= True
print(a) # --> True
a ^= True
print(a) # --> False
In C#:
boolean.variable.down.here ^= true;
The boolean ^ operator is XOR, and XORing with true is the same as inverting.
Related
A function can be a highly nested structure:
function a(x) {
return b(c(x), d(e(f(x), g())))
}
First, wondering if a function has an instance. That is, the evaluation of the function being the instance of the function. In that sense, the type is the function, and the instance is the evaluation of it. If it can be, then how to model a function as a type (in some type-theory oriented language like Haskell or Coq).
It's almost like:
type a {
field: x
constructor b {
constructor c {
parameter: x
},
...
}
}
But I'm not sure if I'm not on the right track. I know you can say a function has a [return] type. But I'm wondering if a function can be considered a type, and if so, how to model it as a type in a type-theory-oriented language, where it models the actual implementation of the function.
I think the problem is that types based directly on the implementation (let's call them "i-types") don't seem very useful, and we already have good ways of modelling them (called "programs" -- ha ha).
In your specific example, the full i-type of your function, namely:
type a {
field: x
constructor b {
constructor c {
parameter: x
},
constructor d {
constructor e {
constructor f {
parameter: x
}
constructor g {
}
}
}
}
is just a verbose, alternative syntax for the implementation itself. That is, we could write this i-type (in a Haskell-like syntax) as:
itype a :: a x = b (c x) (d (e (f x) g))
On the other hand, we could convert your function implementation to Haskell term-level syntax directly to write it as:
a x = b (c x) (d (e (f x) g))
and the i-type and the implementation are exactly the same thing.
How would you use these i-types? The compiler might use them by deriving argument and return types to type-check the program. (Fortunately, there are well known algorithms, such as Algorithm W, for simultaneously deriving and type-checking argument and return types from i-types of this sort.) Programmers probably wouldn't use i-types directly -- they're too complicated to use for refactoring or reasoning about program behavior. They'd probably want to look at the types derived by the compiler for the arguments and return type.
In particular, "modelling" these i-types at the type level in Haskell doesn't seem productive. Haskell can already model them at the term level. Just write your i-types as a Haskell program:
a x = b (c x) (d (e (f x) g))
b s t = sqrt $ fromIntegral $ length (s ++ t)
c = show
d = reverse
e c ds = show (sum ds + fromIntegral (ord c))
f n = if even n then 'E' else 'O'
g = [1.5..5.5]
and don't run it. Congratulations, you've successfully modelled these i-types! You can even use GHCi to query derived argument and return types:
> :t a
a :: Floating a => Integer -> a -- "a" takes an Integer and returns a float
>
Now, you are perhaps imagining that there are situations where the implementation and i-type would diverge, maybe when you start introducing literal values. For example, maybe you feel like the function f above:
f n = if even n then 'E' else 'O'
should be assigned a type something like the following, that doesn't depend on the specific literal values:
type f {
field: n
if_then_else {
constructor even { -- predicate
parameter: n
}
literal Char -- then-branch
literal Char -- else-branch
}
Again, though, you'd be better off defining an arbitrary term-level Char, like:
someChar :: Char
someChar = undefined
and modeling this i-type at the term-level:
f n = if even n then someChar else someChar
Again, as long as you don't run the program, you've successfully modelled the i-type of f, can query its argument and return types, type-check it as part of a bigger program, etc.
I'm not clear exactly what you are aiming at, so I'll try to point at some related terms that you might want to read about.
A function has not only a return type, but a type that describes its arguments as well. So the (Haskell) type of f reads "f takes an Int and a Float, and returns a List of Floats."
f :: Int -> Float -> [Float]
f i x = replicate i x
Types can also describe much more of the specification of a function. Here, we might want the type to spell out that the length of the list will be the same as the first argument, or that every element of the list will be the same as the second argument. Length-indexed lists (often called Vectors) are a common first example of Dependent Types.
You might also be interested in functions that take types as arguments, and return types. These are sometimes called "type-level functions". In Coq or Idris, they can be defined the same way as more familiar functions. In Haskell, we usually implement them using Type Families, or using Type Classes with Functional Dependencies.
Returning to the first part of your question, Beta Reduction is the process of filling in concrete values for each of the function's arguments. I've heard people describe expressions as "after reduction" or "fully reduced" to emphasize some stage in this process. This is similar to a function Call Site, but emphasizes the expression & arguments, rather than the surrounding context.
I have the following class (this is not my real class, but just for illustration purposes):
class Number {
public:
Number() : value_(0) {}
explicit Number(int v) : value_(v) {}
Number(const Number & other){
value_ = other.value_;
}
Number& operator=(const int & v){
value_ = v;
return *this;
}
private:
int value_;
};
I can do the following and they all work correctly:
void test_ok(){
Number x(3);
Number y = Number(3);
Number y2(x);
Number y3 = x;
Number u;
u = 3;
}
However, the following gives this compiler error: no suitable constructor exists to convert from "int" to "Number"
void test_error(){
Number z = 3;
}
If I comment the word "explicit" from the second constructor, then the compiler error is gone and apparently the automatic conversion works fine. Since I would like to keep the keyword "explicit", which constructor am I missing?
Thanks in advance!
The explicit keyword prohibits implicit automatic typecasting. In your test Number z = 3 you're doing exactly that - implicit typecasting, from an int (3) to a Number. The compiler rightfully prohibits that.
If you want to keep the keyword explicit then you'll have to construct the Number object as Number(3) (as you'd already noticed and written).
In short, there is no other constructor that you can use if you want to keep the explicit keyword. Whatever you do, implicit typecasts will be prohibited.
Let's say I have 1000 functions defined as follows
void func dummy1(int a);
void func dummy2(int a, int aa);
void func dummy3(int a, int aa, int aaa);
.
.
.
void func dummy1000(int a, int aa, int aaa, ...);
I want to write a function that takes an integer, n (n < 1000) and calls nth dummy function (in case of 10, dummy10) with exactly n arguments(arguments can be any integer, let's say 0) as required. I know this can be achieved by writing a switch case statement with 1000 cases which is not plausible.
In my opinion, this cannot be achieved without recompilation at run time so languages like java, c, c++ will never let such a thing happen.
Hopefully, there is a way to do this. If so I am curious.
Note: This is not something that I will ever use, I asked question just because of my curiosity.
In modern functional languages, you can make a list of functions which take a list as an argument. This will arguably solve your problem, but it is also arguably cheating, as it is not quite the statically-typed implementation your question seems to imply. However, it is pretty much what dynamic languages such as Python, Ruby, or Perl do when using "manual" argument handling...
Anyway, the following is in Haskell: it supplies the nth function (from its first argument fs) a list of n copies of the second argument (x), and returns the result. Of course, you will need to put together the list of functions somehow, but unlike a switch statement this list will be reusable as a first-class argument.
selectApplyFunction :: [ [Int] -> a ] -> Int -> Int -> a
selectApplyFunction fs x n = (fs !! (n-1)) (replicate n x)
dummy1 [a] = 5 * a
dummy2 [a, b] = (a + 3) * b
dummy3 [a, b, c] = (a*b*c) / (a*b + b*c + c*a)
...
myFunctionList = [ dummy1, dummy2, dummy3, ... ]
-- (myfunction n) provides n copies of the number 42 to the n'th function
myFunction = selectApplyFunction myFunctionList 42
-- call the 666'th function with 666 copies of 42
result = myFunction 666
Of course, you will get an exception if n is greater than the number of functions, or if the function can't handle the list it is given. Note, too, that it is poor Haskell style -- mainly because of the way it abuses lists to (abusively) solve your problem...
No, you are incorrect. Most modern languages support some form of Reflection that will allow you to call a function by name and pass params to it.
You can create an array of functions in most of modern languages.
In pseudo code,
var dummy = new Array();
dummy[1] = function(int a);
dummy[2] = function(int a, int aa);
...
var result = dummy[whateveryoucall](1,2,3,...,whateveryoucall);
In functional languages you could do something like this, in strongly typed ones, like Haskell, the functions must have the same type, though:
funs = [reverse, tail, init] -- 3 functions of type [a]->[a]
run fn arg = (funs !! fn) $ args -- applies function at index fn to args
In object oriented languages, you can use function objects and reflection together to achieve exactly what you want. The problem of the variable number of arguments is solved by passing appropriate POJOs (recalling C stucts) to the function object.
interface Functor<A,B> {
public B compute(A input);
}
class SumInput {
private int x, y;
// getters and setters
}
class Sum implements Functor<SumInput, Integer> {
#Override
public Integer compute(SumInput input) {
return input.getX() + input.getY();
}
}
Now imagine you have a large number of these "functors". You gather them in a configuration file (maybe an XML file with metadata about each functor, usage scenarios, instructions, etc...) and return the list to the user.
The user picks one of them. By using reflection, you can see what is the required input and the expected output. The user fills in the input, and by using reflection you instantiate the functor class (newInstance()), call the compute() function and get the output.
When you add a new functor, you just have to change the list of the functors in the config file.
Update 2: examples removed, because they were misleading. The ones below are more relevant.
My question:
Is there a programming language with such a construct?
Update:
Now when I think about it, Prolog has something similar.
I even allows defining operations at definition line.
(forget about backtracking and relations - think about syntax)
I asked this question because I believe, it's a nice thing to have symmetry in a language.
Symmetry between "in" parameters and "out" parameters.
If returning values like that would be easy, we could drop explicit returning in designed language.
retruning pairs ... I think this is a hack. we do not need a data structure to pass multiple parameters to a function.
Update 2:
To give an example of syntax I'm looking for:
f (s, d&) = // & indicates 'out' variable
d = s+s.
main =
f("say twice", &twice) // & indicates 'out' variable declaration
print(twice)
main2 =
print (f("say twice", _))
Or in functional + prolog style
f $s (s+s). // use $ to mark that s will get it's value in other part of the code
main =
f "say twice" $twice // on call site the second parameter will get it's value from
print twice
main2 =
print (f "Say twice" $_) // anonymous variable
In a proposed language, there are no expressions, because all returns are through parameters. This would be cumbersome in situations where deep hierarchical function calls are natural. Lisp'ish example:
(let x (* (+ 1 2) (+ 3 4))) // equivalent to C x = ((1 + 2) * (3 + 4))
would need in the language names for all temporary variables:
+ 1 2 res1
+ 3 4 res2
* res1 res2 x
So I propose anonymous variables that turn a whole function call into value of this variable:
* (+ 1 2 _) (+ 3 4 _)
This is not very natural, because all the cultural baggage we have, but I want to throw away all preconceptions about syntax we currently have.
<?php
function f($param, &$ret) {
$ret = $param . $param;
}
f("say twice", $twice);
echo $twice;
?>
$twice is seen after the call to f(), and it has the expected value. If you remove the ampersand, there are errors. So it looks like PHP will declare the variable at the point of calling. I'm not convinced that buys you much, though, especially in PHP.
"Is there a programming language with such a construct?"
Your question is in fact a little unclear.
In a sense, any language that supports assignment to [the variable state associated with] a function argument, supports "such a construct".
C supports it because "void f (type *address)" allows modification of anything address points to. Java supports it because "void f (Object x)" allows any (state-modifying) invocation of some method of x. COBOL supports it because "PROCEDURE DIVISION USING X" can involve an X that holds a pointer/memory address, ultimately allowing to go change the state of the thing pointed to by that address.
From that perspective, I'd say almost every language known to mankind supports "such a construct", with the exception perhaps of languages such as Tutorial D, which claim to be "absolutely pointer-free".
I'm having a hard time understanding what you want. You want to put the return type on call signature? I'm sure someone could hack that together but is it really useful?
// fakelang example - use a ; to separate ins and outs
function f(int in1, int in2; int out1, int out2, int out3) {...}
// C++0x-ish
auto f(int in1, int in2) -> int o1, int o2, int o3 {...}
int a, b, c;
a, b, c = f(1, 2);
I get the feeling this would be implemented internally this way:
LEA EAX, c // push output parameter pointers first, in reverse order
PUSH EAX
LEA EAX, b
PUSH EAX
LEA EAX, a
PUSH EAX
PUSH 1 // push input parameters
PUSH 2
CALL f // Caller treat the outputs as references
ADD ESP,20 // clean the stack
For your first code snippet, I'm not aware of any such languages, and frankly I'm glad it is the case. Declaring a variable in the middle of expression like that, and then using it outside said expression, looks very wrong to me. If anything, I'd expect the scope of such variable to be restricted to the function call, but then of course it's quite pointless in the first place.
For the second one - multiple return values - pretty much any language with first-class tuple support has something close to that. E.g. Python:
def foo(x, y):
return (x + 1), (y + 1)
x, y = foo(1, 2)
Lua doesn't have first-class tuples (i.e. you can't bind a tuple value to a single variable - you always have to expand it, possibly discarding part of it), but it does have multiple return values, with essentially the same syntax:
function foo(x, y)
return (x + 1), (y + 1)
end
local x, y = foo(x, y)
F# has first-class tuples, and so everything said earlier about Python applies to it as well. But it can also simulate tuple returns for methods that were declared in C# or VB with out or ref arguments, which is probably the closest to what you describe - though it is still implicit (i.e. you don't specify the out-argument at all, even as _). Example:
// C# definition
int Foo(int x, int y, out int z)
{
z = y + 1;
return x + 1;
}
// explicit F# call
let mutable y = 0
let x = Foo(1, 2, byref y);
// tupled F# call
let x, y = Foo(1, 2)
Here is how you would do it in Perl:
sub f { $_[1] = $_[0] . $_[0] } #in perl all variables are passed by reference
f("say twice", my $twice);
# or f("...", our $twice) or f("...", $twice)
# the last case is only possible if you are not running with "use strict;"
print $twice;
[edit] Also, since you seem interested in minimal syntax:
sub f { $_[1] = $_[0] x 2 } # x is the repetition operator
f "say twice" => $twice; # => is a quoting comma, used here just for clarity
print $twice;
is perfectly valid perl. Here's an example of normal quoting comma usage:
("abc", 1, "d e f", 2) # is the same as
(abc => 1, "d e f" => 2) # the => only quotes perl /\w+/ strings
Also, on return values, unless exited with a "return" early, all perl subroutines automatically return the last line they execute, be it a single value, or a list. Lastly, take a look at perl6's feed operators, which you might find interesting.
[/edit]
I am not sure exactly what you are trying to achieve with the second example, but the concept of implicit variables exists in a few languages, in Perl, it is $_.
an example would be some of perl's builtins which look at $_ when they dont have an argument.
$string = "my string\n";
for ($string) { # loads "my string" into $_
chomp; # strips the last newline from $_
s/my/our/; # substitutes my for our in $_
print; # prints $_
}
without using $_, the above code would be:
chomp $string;
$string =~ s/my/our/;
print $string;
$_ is used in many cases in perl to avoid repeatedly passing temporary variables to functions
Not programming languages, but various process calculi have syntax for binding names at the receiver call sites in the scope of process expressions dependent on them. While Pict has such syntax, it doesn't actually make sense in the derived functional syntax that you're asking about.
You might have a look at Oz. In Oz you only have procedures and you assign values to variables instead of returning them.
It looks like this:
proc {Max X Y Z}
if X >= Y then Z = X else Z = Y end
end
There are functions (that return values) but this is only syntactic sugar.
Also, Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming is a great SICP-like book that teaches programming by using Oz and the Mozart Programming System.
I don't think so. Most languages that do something like that use Tuples so that there can be multiple return values. Come to think of it, the C-style reference and output parameters are mostly hacks around not being about to return Tuples...
Somewhat confusing, but C++ is quite happy with declaring variables and passing them as out parameters in the same statement:
void foo ( int &x, int &y, int &z ) ;
int a,b,c = (foo(a,b,c),c);
But don't do that outside of obfuscation contests.
You might also want to look at pass by name semantics in Algol, which your fuller description smells vaguely similar to.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
When learning a new programming language, one of the possible roadblocks you might encounter is the question whether the language is, by default, pass-by-value or pass-by-reference.
So here is my question to all of you, in your favorite language, how is it actually done? And what are the possible pitfalls?
Your favorite language can, of course, be anything you have ever played with: popular, obscure, esoteric, new, old...
Here is my own contribution for the Java programming language.
first some code:
public void swap(int x, int y)
{
int tmp = x;
x = y;
y = tmp;
}
calling this method will result in this:
int pi = 3;
int everything = 42;
swap(pi, everything);
System.out.println("pi: " + pi);
System.out.println("everything: " + everything);
"Output:
pi: 3
everything: 42"
even using 'real' objects will show a similar result:
public class MyObj {
private String msg;
private int number;
//getters and setters
public String getMsg() {
return this.msg;
}
public void setMsg(String msg) {
this.msg = msg;
}
public int getNumber() {
return this.number;
}
public void setNumber(int number) {
this.number = number;
}
//constructor
public MyObj(String msg, int number) {
setMsg(msg);
setNumber(number);
}
}
public static void swap(MyObj x, MyObj y)
{
MyObj tmp = x;
x = y;
y = tmp;
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
MyObj x = new MyObj("Hello world", 1);
MyObj y = new MyObj("Goodbye Cruel World", -1);
swap(x, y);
System.out.println(x.getMsg() + " -- "+ x.getNumber());
System.out.println(y.getMsg() + " -- "+ y.getNumber());
}
"Output:
Hello world -- 1
Goodbye Cruel World -- -1"
thus it is clear that Java passes its parameters by value, as the value for pi and everything and the MyObj objects aren't swapped.
be aware that "by value" is the only way in java to pass parameters to a method. (for example a language like c++ allows the developer to pass a parameter by reference using '&' after the parameter's type)
now the tricky part, or at least the part that will confuse most of the new java developers: (borrowed from javaworld)
Original author: Tony Sintes
public void tricky(Point arg1, Point arg2)
{
arg1.x = 100;
arg1.y = 100;
Point temp = arg1;
arg1 = arg2;
arg2 = temp;
}
public static void main(String [] args)
{
Point pnt1 = new Point(0,0);
Point pnt2 = new Point(0,0);
System.out.println("X: " + pnt1.x + " Y: " +pnt1.y);
System.out.println("X: " + pnt2.x + " Y: " +pnt2.y);
System.out.println(" ");
tricky(pnt1,pnt2);
System.out.println("X: " + pnt1.x + " Y:" + pnt1.y);
System.out.println("X: " + pnt2.x + " Y: " +pnt2.y);
}
"Output
X: 0 Y: 0
X: 0 Y: 0
X: 100 Y: 100
X: 0 Y: 0"
tricky successfully changes the value of pnt1!
This would imply that Objects are passed by reference, this is not the case!
A correct statement would be: the Object references are passed by value.
more from Tony Sintes:
The method successfully alters the
value of pnt1, even though it is
passed by value; however, a swap of
pnt1 and pnt2 fails! This is the major
source of confusion. In the main()
method, pnt1 and pnt2 are nothing more
than object references. When you pass
pnt1 and pnt2 to the tricky() method,
Java passes the references by value
just like any other parameter. This
means the references passed to the
method are actually copies of the
original references. Figure 1 below
shows two references pointing to the
same object after Java passes an
object to a method.
(source: javaworld.com)
Conclusion or a long story short:
Java passes it parameters by value
"by value" is the only way in java to pass a parameter to a method
using methods from the object given as parameter will alter the object as the references point to the original objects. (if that method itself alters some values)
useful links:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/javaqa/2000-05/03-qa-0526-pass.html
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-passbyval/
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-praxis/pr1.html
http://javadude.com/articles/passbyvalue.htm
Here is another article for the c# programming language
c# passes its arguments by value (by default)
private void swap(string a, string b) {
string tmp = a;
a = b;
b = tmp;
}
calling this version of swap will thus have no result:
string x = "foo";
string y = "bar";
swap(x, y);
"output:
x: foo
y: bar"
however, unlike java c# does give the developer the opportunity to pass parameters by reference, this is done by using the 'ref' keyword before the type of the parameter:
private void swap(ref string a, ref string b) {
string tmp = a;
a = b;
b = tmp;
}
this swap will change the value of the referenced parameter:
string x = "foo";
string y = "bar";
swap(x, y);
"output:
x: bar
y: foo"
c# also has a out keyword, and the difference between ref and out is a subtle one.
from msdn:
The caller of a method which takes an
out parameter is not required to
assign to the variable passed as the
out parameter prior to the call;
however, the callee is required to
assign to the out parameter before
returning.
and
In contrast ref parameters are
considered initially assigned by the
callee. As such, the callee is not
required to assign to the ref
parameter before use. Ref parameters
are passed both into and out of a
method.
a small pitfall is, like in java, that objects passed by value can still be changed using their inner methods
conclusion:
c# passes its parameters, by default, by value
but when needed parameters can also be passed by reference using the ref keyword
inner methods from a parameter passed by value will alter the object (if that method itself alters some values)
useful links:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vcsharp/aa336814.aspx
http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/saragana/Willswapwork11162005012542AM/Willswapwork.aspx
http://en.csharp-online.net/Value_vs_Reference
Python uses pass-by-value, but since all such values are object references, the net effect is something akin to pass-by-reference. However, Python programmers think more about whether an object type is mutable or immutable. Mutable objects can be changed in-place (e.g., dictionaries, lists, user-defined objects), whereas immutable objects can't (e.g., integers, strings, tuples).
The following example shows a function that is passed two arguments, an immutable string, and a mutable list.
>>> def do_something(a, b):
... a = "Red"
... b.append("Blue")
...
>>> a = "Yellow"
>>> b = ["Black", "Burgundy"]
>>> do_something(a, b)
>>> print a, b
Yellow ['Black', 'Burgundy', 'Blue']
The line a = "Red" merely creates a local name, a, for the string value "Red" and has no effect on the passed-in argument (which is now hidden, as a must refer to the local name from then on). Assignment is not an in-place operation, regardless of whether the argument is mutable or immutable.
The b parameter is a reference to a mutable list object, and the .append() method performs an in-place extension of the list, tacking on the new "Blue" string value.
(Because string objects are immutable, they don't have any methods that support in-place modifications.)
Once the function returns, the re-assignment of a has had no effect, while the extension of b clearly shows pass-by-reference style call semantics.
As mentioned before, even if the argument for a is a mutable type, the re-assignment within the function is not an in-place operation, and so there would be no change to the passed argument's value:
>>> a = ["Purple", "Violet"]
>>> do_something(a, b)
>>> print a, b
['Purple', 'Violet'] ['Black', 'Burgundy', 'Blue', 'Blue']
If you didn't want your list modified by the called function, you would instead use the immutable tuple type (identified by the parentheses in the literal form, rather than square brackets), which does not support the in-place .append() method:
>>> a = "Yellow"
>>> b = ("Black", "Burgundy")
>>> do_something(a, b)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
File "<stdin>", line 3, in do_something
AttributeError: 'tuple' object has no attribute 'append'
Since I haven't seen a Perl answer yet, I thought I'd write one.
Under the hood, Perl works effectively as pass-by-reference. Variables as function call arguments are passed referentially, constants are passed as read-only values, and results of expressions are passed as temporaries. The usual idioms to construct argument lists by list assignment from #_, or by shift tend to hide this from the user, giving the appearance of pass-by-value:
sub incr {
my ( $x ) = #_;
$x++;
}
my $value = 1;
incr($value);
say "Value is now $value";
This will print Value is now 1 because the $x++ has incremented the lexical variable declared within the incr() function, rather than the variable passed in. This pass-by-value style is usually what is wanted most of the time, as functions that modify their arguments are rare in Perl, and the style should be avoided.
However, if for some reason this behaviour is specifically desired, it can be achieved by operating directly on elements of the #_ array, because they will be aliases for variables passed into the function.
sub incr {
$_[0]++;
}
my $value = 1;
incr($value);
say "Value is now $value";
This time it will print Value is now 2, because the $_[0]++ expression incremented the actual $value variable. The way this works is that under the hood #_ is not a real array like most other arrays (such as would be obtained by my #array), but instead its elements are built directly out of the arguments passed to a function call. This allows you to construct pass-by-reference semantics if that would be required. Function call arguments that are plain variables are inserted as-is into this array, and constants or results of more complex expressions are inserted as read-only temporaries.
It is however exceedingly rare to do this in practice, because Perl supports reference values; that is, values that refer to other variables. Normally it is far clearer to construct a function that has an obvious side-effect on a variable, by passing in a reference to that variable. This is a clear indication to the reader at the callsite, that pass-by-reference semantics are in effect.
sub incr_ref {
my ( $ref ) = #_;
$$ref++;
}
my $value = 1;
incr(\$value);
say "Value is now $value";
Here the \ operator yields a reference in much the same way as the & address-of operator in C.
There's a good explanation here for .NET.
A lot of people are surprise that reference objects are actually passed by value (in both C# and Java). It's a copy of a stack address. This prevents a method from changing where the object actually points to, but still allows a method to change the values of the object. In C# its possible to pass a reference by reference, which means you can change where an actual object points to.
Don't forget there is also pass by name, and pass by value-result.
Pass by value-result is similar to pass by value, with the added aspect that the value is set in the original variable that was passed as the parameter. It can, to some extent, avoid interference with global variables. It is apparently better in partitioned memory, where a pass by reference could cause a page fault (Reference).
Pass by name means that the values are only calculated when they are actually used, rather than at the start of the procedure. Algol used pass-by-name, but an interesting side effect is that is it very difficult to write a swap procedure (Reference). Also, the expression passed by name is re-evaluated each time it is accessed, which can also have side effects.
Whatever you say as pass-by-value or pass-by-reference must be consistent across languages. The most common and consistent definition used across languages is that with pass-by-reference, you can pass a variable to a function "normally" (i.e. without explicitly taking address or anything like that), and the function can assign to (not mutate the contents of) the parameter inside the function and it will have the same effect as assigning to the variable in the calling scope.
From this view, the languages are grouped as follows; each group having the same passing semantics. If you think that two languages should not be put in the same group, I challenge you to come up with an example that distinguishes them.
The vast majority of languages including C, Java, Python, Ruby, JavaScript, Scheme, OCaml, Standard ML, Go, Objective-C, Smalltalk, etc. are all pass-by-value only. Passing a pointer value (some languages call it a "reference") does not count as pass by reference; we are only concerned about the thing passed, the pointer, not the thing pointed to.
Languages such as C++, C#, PHP are by default pass-by-value like the languages above, but functions can explicitly declare parameters to be pass-by-reference, using & or ref.
Perl is always pass-by-reference; however, in practice people almost always copy the values after getting it, thus using it in a pass-by-value way.
by value
is slower than by reference since the system has to copy the parameter
used for input only
by reference
faster since only a pointer is passed
used for input and output
can be very dangerous if used in conjunction with global variables
Concerning J, while there is only, AFAIK, passing by value, there is a form of passing by reference which enables moving a lot of data. You simply pass something known as a locale to a verb (or function). It can be an instance of a class or just a generic container.
spaceused=: [: 7!:5 <
exectime =: 6!:2
big_chunk_of_data =. i. 1000 1000 100
passbyvalue =: 3 : 0
$ y
''
)
locale =. cocreate''
big_chunk_of_data__locale =. big_chunk_of_data
passbyreference =: 3 : 0
l =. y
$ big_chunk_of_data__l
''
)
exectime 'passbyvalue big_chunk_of_data'
0.00205586720663967
exectime 'passbyreference locale'
8.57957102144893e_6
The obvious disadvantage is that you need to know the name of your variable in some way in the called function. But this technique can move a lot of data painlessly. That's why, while technically not pass by reference, I call it "pretty much that".
PHP is also pass by value.
<?php
class Holder {
private $value;
public function __construct($value) {
$this->value = $value;
}
public function getValue() {
return $this->value;
}
}
function swap($x, $y) {
$tmp = $x;
$x = $y;
$y = $tmp;
}
$a = new Holder('a');
$b = new Holder('b');
swap($a, $b);
echo $a->getValue() . ", " . $b->getValue() . "\n";
Outputs:
a b
However in PHP4 objects were treated like primitives. Which means:
<?php
$myData = new Holder('this should be replaced');
function replaceWithGreeting($holder) {
$myData->setValue('hello');
}
replaceWithGreeting($myData);
echo $myData->getValue(); // Prints out "this should be replaced"
By default, ANSI/ISO C uses either--it depends on how you declare your function and its parameters.
If you declare your function parameters as pointers then the function will be pass-by-reference, and if you declare your function parameters as not-pointer variables then the function will be pass-by-value.
void swap(int *x, int *y); //< Declared as pass-by-reference.
void swap(int x, int y); //< Declared as pass-by-value (and probably doesn't do anything useful.)
You can run into problems if you create a function that returns a pointer to a non-static variable that was created within that function. The returned value of the following code would be undefined--there is no way to know if the memory space allocated to the temporary variable created in the function was overwritten or not.
float *FtoC(float temp)
{
float c;
c = (temp-32)*9/5;
return &c;
}
You could, however, return a reference to a static variable or a pointer that was passed in the parameter list.
float *FtoC(float *temp)
{
*temp = (*temp-32)*9/5;
return temp;
}