How can I register a method that relies on move semantics and std::unique_ptr with chaiscript's engine? Here's an example piece of code I cannot get to work using chaiscript 5.8.5 :
class Element;
class MyClass
{
public:
void addElement(std::unique_ptr<Element>&&);
};
chaiscript::ModulePtr m = chaiscript::ModulePtr(new chaiscript::Module());
chaiscript::utility::add_class<MyClass>(*m, "MyClass", {
chaiscript::constructor<MyClass ()>()
}, {
{chaiscript::fun(&MyClass::addElement), "addElement"},
});
This generates the following error from within chaiscript:
dispatchkit/boxed_cast_helper.hpp:43:46: error: 'type name' declared as a pointer to a reference of type 'std::__1::unique_ptr
std::__1::default_delete > &&' return *static_cast(p);
r-values and unique_ptr now have support in the develop branch (to become version 6.0.0) of ChaiScript, but at the time this question was asked it was not possible.
Related
I'm implementing an interface that returns a DeviceInformationCollection. The implementation can time out (or fail), in which case I would like to return an empty collection. This is to allow clients of the interface to always iterate over the returned collection, regardless of whether it succeeded or not, e.g.
auto&& devices{ co_await MyType::GetDevicesAsync() };
for (auto&& device : devices)
{
// Do crazy stuff with 'device'
}
However, I cannot figure out, how to construct an empty DeviceInformationCollection. The following code 'works', but causes undefined behavior when clients use the code above:
IAsyncOperation<DeviceInformationCollection> MyType::GetDevicesAsync()
{
// Doing Guru Meditation
// ...
co_return { nullptr };
}
My current workaround is to return an IVector<DeviceInformation> instead, and copy the items of the internal DeviceInformationCollection into the vector on success. That's both tedious as well as inefficient. I'd much rather just return the DeviceInformationCollection as-is, and construct an empty collection on failure.
Is there a way to do this?
Officially, this is not supported as the DeviceInformationCollection class does not provide a way to create an empty instance of itself. Unless you can find some function in the Windows.Devices.Enumeration API that does this for you you're out of luck.
Unofficially, we can observe that the default interface for the DeviceInformationCollection class is IVectorView. This means that this interface represents the class on the ABI. So you can play tricks with this knowledge but in general, this is very dangerous because APIs that accept a DeviceInformationCollection as input may assume that its implementation is exclusive and thus rely on some internal layout that you may not be aware of. Better to return IVectorView every time in a polymorphic and safe manner. Something like this:
using namespace winrt;
using namespace Windows::Foundation;
using namespace Windows::Foundation::Collections;
using namespace Windows::Devices::Enumeration;
IAsyncOperation<IVectorView<DeviceInformation>> Async()
{
DeviceInformationCollection devices = co_await // ... some async call
if (devices)
{
co_return devices;
}
// Returns empty IVectorView...
co_return single_threaded_observable_vector<DeviceInformation>().GetView();
}
int main()
{
for (auto&& device : Async().get())
{
printf("%ls\n", device.Name().c_str());
}
}
I'm trying to throw a custom error with my "CustomError" class name printed in the console instead of "Error", with no success:
class CustomError extends Error {
constructor(message: string) {
super(`Lorem "${message}" ipsum dolor.`);
this.name = 'CustomError';
}
}
throw new CustomError('foo');
The output is Uncaught Error: Lorem "foo" ipsum dolor.
What I expect: Uncaught CustomError: Lorem "foo" ipsum dolor.
I wonder if that can be done using TS only (without messing with JS prototypes)?
Are you using typescript version 2.1, and transpiling to ES5? Check this section of the breaking changes page for possible issues and workaround: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript-wiki/blob/master/Breaking-Changes.md#extending-built-ins-like-error-array-and-map-may-no-longer-work
The relevant bit:
As a recommendation, you can manually adjust the prototype immediately after any super(...) calls.
class FooError extends Error {
constructor(m: string) {
super(m);
// Set the prototype explicitly.
Object.setPrototypeOf(this, FooError.prototype);
}
sayHello() {
return "hello " + this.message;
}
}
However, any subclass of FooError will have to manually set the prototype as well. For runtimes that don't support Object.setPrototypeOf, you may instead be able to use __proto__.
Unfortunately, these workarounds will not work on Internet Explorer 10 and prior. One can manually copy methods from the prototype onto the instance itself (i.e. FooError.prototype onto this), but the prototype chain itself cannot be fixed.
The problem is that Javascript's built-in class Error breaks the prototype chain by switching the object to be constructed (i.e. this) to a new, different object, when you call super and that new object doesn't have the expected prototype chain, i.e. it's an instance of Error not of CustomError.
This problem can be elegantly solved using 'new.target', which is supported since Typescript 2.2, see here: https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/release-notes/typescript-2-2.html
class CustomError extends Error {
constructor(message?: string) {
// 'Error' breaks prototype chain here
super(message);
// restore prototype chain
const actualProto = new.target.prototype;
if (Object.setPrototypeOf) { Object.setPrototypeOf(this, actualProto); }
else { this.__proto__ = actualProto; }
}
}
Using new.target has the advantage that you don't have to hardcode the prototype, like some other answers here proposed. That again has the advantage that classes inheriting from CustomError will automatically also get the correct prototype chain.
If you were to hardcode the prototype (e.g. Object.setPrototype(this, CustomError.prototype)), CustomError itself would have a working prototype chain, but any classes inheriting from CustomError would be broken, e.g. instances of a class VeryCustomError < CustomError would not be instanceof VeryCustomError as expected, but only instanceof CustomError.
See also: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/13965#issuecomment-278570200
As of TypeScript 2.2 it can be done via new.target.prototype.
https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/release-notes/typescript-2-2.html#example
class CustomError extends Error {
constructor(message?: string) {
super(message); // 'Error' breaks prototype chain here
this.name = 'CustomError';
Object.setPrototypeOf(this, new.target.prototype); // restore prototype chain
}
}
It works correctly in ES2015 (https://jsfiddle.net/x40n2gyr/). Most likely, the problem is that the TypeScript compiler is transpiling to ES5, and Error cannot be correctly subclassed using only ES5 features; it can only be correctly subclassed using ES2015 and above features (class or, more obscurely, Reflect.construct). This is because when you call Error as a function (rather than via new or, in ES2015, super or Reflect.construct), it ignores this and creates a new Error.
You'll probably have to live with the imperfect output until you can target ES2015 or higher...
I literally never post on SO, but my team is working on a TypeScript project, and we needed to create many custom error classes, while also targeting es5. It would have been incredibly tedious to do the suggested fix in every single error class. But we found that we were able to have a downstream effect on all subsequent error classes by creating a main custom error class, and having the rest of our errors extend that class. Inside of that main error class we did the following to have that downstream effect of updating the prototype:
class MainErrorClass extends Error {
constructor() {
super()
Object.setPrototypeOf(this, new.target.prototype)
}
}
class SomeNewError extends MainErrorClass {}
...
Using new.target.prototype was the key to getting all of the inheriting error classes to be updated without needing to update the constructor of each one.
Just hoping this saves someone else a headache in the future!
I ran into the same problem in my typescript project a few days ago. To make it work, I use the implementation from MDN using only vanilla js. So your error would look something like the following:
function CustomError(message) {
this.name = 'CustomError';
this.message = message || 'Default Message';
this.stack = (new Error()).stack;
}
CustomError.prototype = Object.create(Error.prototype);
CustomError.prototype.constructor = CustomError;
throw new CustomError('foo');
It doesn't seem to work in SO code snippet, but it does in the chrome console and in my typescript project:
I was having this problem in a nodejs server. what worked for me was to transpile down to es2017 in which these issues seems to be fixed.
Edit tsconfig to
"target": "es2017"
Try this...
class CustomError extends Error {
constructor(message: string) {
super(`Lorem "${message}" ipsum dolor.`)
}
get name() { return this.constructor.name }
}
throw new CustomError('foo')
I have a XAML + DirectX app and I want to add static field to my "interop" class:
[Windows::Foundation::Metadata::WebHostHidden]
public ref class Direct3DInterop sealed : public Windows::Phone::Input::Interop::IDrawingSurfaceManipulationHandler
{
public:
static int VALUE = 0;
...
};
It does not compile saying "only static const integral data members can be initialized within a class".
If I change it to const static int VALUE = 0; then it still does not compile with error "a non-value type cannot have any public data members"
What am I doing wrong?
WinRT public classes have a number of limitations to ensure they are consumable by multiple languages including C++, JavaScript, and C#. This is why you are getting error C3984. You can't have public fields and instead must use properties. You'd make it a read-only property:
property int VALUE
{
int get() { return 0; }
}
It is important to remember that properties are function calls and can't usually be optimized away, so you should consider that when designing the interfaces.
If you intend to have this class only consumable by C++, consider not using a WinRT class and instead use a simple C++ class which you managed the lifetime using std::unique_ptr or std::shared_ptr. In that case, you can of course use the public field approach as always.
The original problem you got is a general C++ language restriction not specific to WinRT. Error C2864 (you are using VS 2012 from the text you posted) is a little more general with C++11 in VS2013.
So I have made this simple interface:
package{
public interface GraphADT{
function addNode(newNode:Node):Boolean;
}
}
I have also created a simple class Graph:
package{
public class Graph implements GraphADT{
protected var nodes:LinkedList;
public function Graph(){
nodes = new LinkedList();
}
public function addNode (newNode:Node):Boolean{
return nodes.add(newNode);
}
}
last but not least I have created another simple class AdjacancyListGraph:
package{
public class AdjacancyListGraph extends Graph{
public function AdjacancyListGraph(){
super();
}
override public function addNode(newNode:AwareNode):Boolean{
return nodes.add(newNode);
}
}
Having this setup here is giving me errors, namely:
1144: Interface method addNode in namespace GraphADT is implemented with an incompatible signature in class AdjacancyListGraph.
Upon closer inspection it was apparent that AS3 doesn't like the different parameter types from the different Graph classes newNode:Node from Graph , and newNode:AwareNode from AdjacancyListGraph
However I don't understand why that would be a problem since AwareNode is a subClass of Node.
Is there any way I can make my code work, while keeping the integrity of the code?
Simple answer:
If you don't really, really need your 'addNode()' function to accept only an AwareNode, you can just change the parameter type to Node. Since AwareNode extends Node, you can pass in an AwareNode without problems. You could check for type correctness within the function body :
subclass... {
override public function addNode (node:Node ) : Boolean {
if (node is AwareNode) return nodes.add(node);
return false;
}
}
Longer answer:
I agree with #32bitkid that your are getting an error, because the parameter type defined for addNode() in your interface differs from the type in your subclass.
However, the main problem at hand is that ActionScript generally does not allow function overloading (having more than one method of the same name, but with different parameters or return values), because each function is treated like a generic class member - the same way a variable is. You might call a function like this:
myClass.addNode (node);
but you might also call it like this:
myClass["addNode"](node);
Each member is stored by name - and you can always use that name to access it. Unfortunately, this means that you are only allowed to use each function name once within a class, regardless of how many parameters of which type it takes - nothing comes without a price: You gain flexibility in one regard, you lose some comfort in another.
Hence, you are only allowed to override methods with the exact same signature - it's a way to make you stick to what you decided upon when you wrote the base class. While you could obviously argue that this is a bad idea, and that it makes more sense to use overloading or allow different signatures in subclasses, there are some advantages to the way that AS handles functions, which will eventually help you solve your problem: You can use a type-checking function, or even pass one on as a parameter!
Consider this:
class... {
protected function check (node:Node) : Boolean {
return node is Node;
}
public function addNode (node:Node) : Boolean {
if (check(node)) return nodes.add(node);
return false;
}
}
In this example, you could override check (node:Node):
subclass... {
override protected function check (node:Node) : Boolean {
return node is AwareNode;
}
}
and achieve the exact same effect you desired, without breaking the interface contract - except, in your example, the compiler would throw an error if you passed in the wrong type, while in this one, the mistake would only be visible at runtime (a false return value).
You can also make this even more dynamic:
class... {
public function addNode (node:Node, check : Function ) : Boolean {
if (check(node)) return nodes.add(node);
return false;
}
}
Note that this addNode function accepts a Function as a parameter, and that we call that function instead of a class method:
var f:Function = function (node:Node) : Boolean {
return node is AwareNode;
}
addNode (node, f);
This would allow you to become very flexible with your implementation - you can even do plausibility checks in the anonymous function, such as verifying the node's content. And you wouldn't even have to extend your class, unless you were going to add other functionality than just type correctness.
Having an interface will also allow you to create implementations that don't inherit from the original base class - you can write a whole different class hierarchy, it only has to implement the interface, and all your previous code will remain valid.
I guess the question is really this: What are you trying to accomplish?
As to why you are getting an error, consider this:
public class AnotherNode extends Node { }
and then:
var alGraph:AdjacancyListGraph = new AdjacancyListGraph();
alGraph.addNode(new AnotherNode());
// Wont work. AnotherNode isn't compatable with the signature
// for addNode(node:AwareNode)
// but what about the contract?
var igraphADT:GraphADT = GraphADT(alGraph);
igraphADT.addNode(new AnotherNode()); // WTF?
According to the interface this should be fine. But your implemenation says otherwise, your implemenation says that it will only accept a AwareNode. There is an obvious mismatch. If you are going to have an interface, a contract that your object should follow, then you might as well follow it. Otherwise, whats the point of the interface in the first place.
I submit that architecture messed up somewhere if you are trying to do this. Even if the language were to support it, I would say that its a "Bad Idea™"
There's an easier way, then suggested above, but less safe:
public class Parent {
public function get foo():Function { return this._foo; }
protected var _foo:Function = function(node:Node):void { ... }}
public class Child extends Parent {
public function Child() {
super();
this._foo = function(node:AnotherNode):void { ... }}}
Of course _foo needs not be declared in place, the syntax used is for shortness and demonstration purposes only.
You will loose the ability of the compiler to check types, but the runtime type matching will still apply.
Yet another way to go about it - don't declare methods in the classes they specialize on, rather make them static, then you will not inherit them automatically:
public class Parent {
public static function foo(parent:Parent, node:Node):Function { ... }}
public class Child extends Parent {
public static function foo(parent:Child, node:Node):Function { ... }}
Note that in second case protected fields are accessible inside the static method, so you can achieve certain encapsulation. Besides, if you have a lot of Parent or Child instances, you will save on individual instance memory footprint (as static methods therefore static there exists only one copy of them, but instance methods would be copied for each instance). The disadvantage is that you won't be able to use interfaces (can be actually an improvement... depends on your personal preferences).
I have 2 classes representing 2 objects. From the "whoCalledMe" function, I want to find out what object called the function (without passing that information in as an argument). I've used a make-believe property, "caller", that would give me the reference I'm looking for. Is there a generic way I can get a reference to the caller from there?
package {
public class ObjectCallingTheFunction {
public var IDENTITY:String = "I'm the calling function!";
public function ObjectCallingTheFunction() {
var objectWithFunction:ObjectWithFunction = new ObjectWithFunction();
objectWithFunction.whoCalledMe();
}
}
}
package {
public class ObjectWithFunction {
public function whoCalledMe ():void {
trace(caller.IDENTITY); // Outputs: "I'm the calling function!"
}
}
}
It would help to know why you need this, because I have a feeling that you don't really. If the method is anonymous, you can bind the 'this' keyword by using .apply on the method:
var foo:Function = function(arg:int):void
{
trace(this);
};
var bar:Object = {
toString: function():String { return "bar"; }
};
var baz:Object = {
toString: function():String { return "baz"; }
};
foo.apply(bar); // <-- Prints "bar"
foo.apply(baz); // <-- Prints "baz"
If the method is an instance method method however, it's a bound method and thus "this" will always point to the instance of the class it's declared in, no matter if you redefine it by using the apply method. If it's a static method, "this" doesn't make sense and the compiler will catch it.
Other than that, there's really no way short of declaring it as a parameter. There used to be a caller property on the arguments object, but it was deprecated when AS3 was released. You can get a reference to the function itself through arguments.callee, but that's not really what you asked for.
In AS3 you can throw an error and then parse the Stack Trace to find out detailed informations.
You can check here for an example:
http://www.actionscript-flash-guru.com/blog/18-parse-file-package-function-name-from-stack-trace-in-actionscript-as3
If you want to find the called function's name you can follow this example:
http://www.flashontherocks.com/2010/03/12/getting-function-name-in-actionscript-3/
I guess you want to know the caller in debug purpose. if so I would recommend setting a breakpoint in the method/function instead of tracing. When the code breaks you can backtrace the caller and a lot more. Works in Flash IDE as well as Flashbuilder. Google "as3 breakpoints" if you are new to breakpoints.
Here is the official Adobe article on using arguments.callee
http://livedocs.adobe.com/flash/9.0/ActionScriptLangRefV3/arguments.html
It includes sample code.
Hope this helps.