class construct for genie - constructor

the code will output
1
2
2
the 1 only print once. I have no idea, how to write it in genie.
below is vala code:
public static void main() {
var a = new One();
var b = new One();
}
class One : Object {
class construct {
stdout.puts("1\n");
}
public One () {
stdout.puts("2\n");
}
}
What is the equivalent code class construct method for genie?
If Genie's init? (NOW) it is diffrent from vala's class construct?
Genie's init
below can't works!
init
var a = new One
var b = new One
class One
construct ()
stdout.puts("2\n")
init
stdout.puts("1\n")
construct block require GLib.object
construct block => init block
but Vala's class construct dosen't.
so vala will works, but Genie dosen't,
vala code:
class One {
class construct {
stdout.puts("1\n");
}
public One () {
stdout.puts("2\n");
}
}
Why this functionality is useful?
Actually I never use class before.
but I think it is useful, very useful.
example: init some static fileds ( or class fields: that another question).
I don't know why? Why Vala implement this feature?
It must be useful if Vala implement it.

Fom what I can tell from the documentation I thought it was init. Although I'm not sure why you would want to use it. It might be useful for some lazy loading of static data used in all instances of the class, but I've never done that myself.
In object oriented programming terminology a class is "instantiated" when it is created as an object. The process of instantiation can be customized with a "constructor". In Vala and Genie it is also possible to customize the process when an object is no longer needed with a "destructor".
If a method does not act upon the data in the object it is called a static method. By definition a constructor does not act upon the data in the object, but returns a new object. So constructors are always static and static construct is the wrong name. In Vala there is class construct and if you change your code to use that you get the same result. See Vala different type of constructors for a thorough treatment on this subject in Vala. The part about class construct is at the end.
My understanding was Genie's init was the equivalent of Vala's class construct. I think your question has uncovered a problem in Genie. My understanding was this code would answer your question:
[indent = 4]
init
var a = new One()
var b = new One()
var c = new One.alternative_constructor()
class One:Object
init
print "Class 'One' is registered with GType"
construct()
print "Object of type 'One' created"
construct alternative_constructor()
print """Obect of type 'One' created with named constructor
'alternative_constructor', but the design of your
class is probably too complex if it has multiple
constructors."""
def One()
print "This is not a constructor"
final
print "Object of type 'One' destroyed"
This, however, outputs:
Class 'One' is registered with GType
Object of type 'One' created
Class 'One' is registered with GType
Object of type 'One' created
Class 'One' is registered with GType
Obect of type 'One' created with named constructor
'alternative_constructor', but the design of your
class is probably too complex if it has multiple
constructors.
Object of type 'One' destroyed
Object of type 'One' destroyed
Object of type 'One' destroyed
Whereas the registration with GType only happens once so the init code is being put in the wrong place and getting called with each instantiation not with the type registration. So at present I don't think there is an equivalent of Vala's class construct in Genie.
Changing the behaviour of init may be one solution, but I may have misunderstood its original purpose and there is probably plenty of code out there now that relies on its current behaviour. The other solution is to write a patch for the Genie parser that implements this. You would need to make a good case why this functionality is useful.

Related

Run a 'constructor' or function, after class fields initialized, in a sane way?

I'd like to use ES6 public class fields:
class Superclass {
constructor() {
// would like to write modular code that applies to all
// subclasses here, or similarly somewhere in Superclass
this.example++; // does NOT WORK (not intialized)
//e.g. doStuffWith(this.fieldTemplates)
}
}
class Subclass extends Superclass {
example = 0
static fieldTemplates = [
Foo,
function() {this.example++},
etc
]
}
Problem:
ES6 public fields are NOT initialized before the constructors, only before the current constructor. For example, when calling super(), any child field will not yet have been defined, like this.example will not yet exist. Static fields will have already been defined. So for example if one were to execute the code function(){this.example++} with .bind as appropriate, called from the superclass constructor, it would fail.
Workaround:
One workaround would be to put all initialization logic after all ES6 public classes have been properly initialized. For example:
class Subclass extends Superclass {
example = 0
lateConstructor = (function(){
this.example++; // works fine
}).bind(this)()
}
What's the solution?
However, this would involve rewriting every single class. I would like something like this by just defining it in the Superclass.constructor, something magic like Object.defineProperty(this, 'lateConstructor', {some magic}) (Object.defineProperty is allegedly internally how es6 static fields are defined, but I see no such explanation how to achieve this programatically in say the mozilla docs; after using Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor to inspect my above immediately-.binded-and-evaluated cludge I'm inclined to believe there is no way to define a property descriptor as a thunk; the definition is probably executed after returning from super(), that is probably immediately evaluated and assigned to the class like let exampleValue = eval(...); Object.defineProperty(..{value:exampleValue})). Alternatively I could do something horrible like do setTimeout(this.lateConstructor,0) in the Superclass.constructor but that would break many things and not compose well.
I could perhaps try to just use a hierarchy of Objects everywhere instead, but is there some way to implement some global logic for all subclasses in the parent class? Besides making everything lazy with getters? Thanks for any insight.
References:
Run additional action after constructor -- (problems: this requires wrapping all subclasses)
Can I create a thunk to run after the constructor?
No, that is not possible.
How to run code after class fields are initialized, in a sane way?
Put the code in the constructor of the class that defines those fields.
Is there some way to implement some global logic for all subclasses in the parent class?
Yes: define a method. The subclass can call it from its constructor.
Just thought of a workaround (that is hierarchically composable). To answer my own question, in a somewhat unfulfilling way (people should feel free to post better solutions):
// The following illustrates a way to ensure all public class fields have been defined and initialized
// prior to running 'constructor' code. This is achieved by never calling new directly, but instead just
// running Someclass.make(...). All constructor code is instead written in an init(...) function.
class Superclass {
init(opts) { // 'constructor'
this.toRun(); // custom constructor logic example
}
static make() { // the magic that makes everything work
var R = new this();
R.init(...arguments);
return R;
}
}
class Subclass extends Superclass {
subclassValue = 0 // custom public class field example
init(toAdd, opts) { // 'constructor'
// custom constructor logic example
this.subclassValue += toAdd; // may use THIS before super.init
super.init(opts);
// may do stuff afterwards
}
toRun() { // custom public class method example
console.log('.subclassValue = ', this.subclassValue);
}
}
Demo:
> var obj = Subclass.make(1, {});
.subclassValue = 1
> console.log(obj);
Subclass {
subclassValue: 1
__proto__: Superclass
}

When using the 'Class' datatype, how can I specify the type so I only accept subclass of a specific class?

I've got a method that accepts a parameter of type Class, and I want to only accept classes that extend SuperClass. Right now, all I can figure out to do is this, which does a run-time check on an instance:
public function careless(SomeClass:Class):void {
var instance:SomeClass = new SomeClass();
if (instance as SuperClass) {
// great, i guess
} else {
// damn, wish i'd have known this at compile time
}
}
Is there any way to do something like this, so I can be assured that a Class instance extends some super class?
public function careful(SomeClass:[Class extends SuperClass]):void {
var instance:SuperClass = new SomeClass();
// all is good
}
If you are going to instantiate it anyway, why not accept an object instead which allows you to type it to :SuperClass?
careless(SomeClass);
//vs.
careless(new SomeClass);
Not too much of a problem there as far as your code goes.
There are a few differences though:
The object has to be created, because an object is required. If your function does not instantiate the class under some circumstances, this can be a problem. Additional logic to pass either an object or null can bloat the function call.
If you cannot call the constructor outside that function, it won't
work either.
All that is solved by the factory pattern. Pass a factory as the parameter that produces SuperClass objects.
function careful(factory:SuperClassFactory)
Your requirements:
I want to only accept classes that extend SuperClass
and
I need to pass in a Class so that it can be instantiated many times
by other objects later
Can be met by passing in an instance of the class you need, and using the Object.constructor() method.
public function careful(someInstance:SuperClass):void {
//you probably want to store classRef in a member variable
var classRef: Class = someInstance.constructor();
//the following is guaranteed to cast correctly,
//since someInstance will always be a descendant of SuperClass
var myInst:SuperClass = new classRef() as SuperClass;
}
More reading here.
You can't do that in ActionScript 3. In languages like C# you can do something like (forgive me if the syntax is off):
public void Careless<T>() where T : SuperClass
But AS3 does not have 'generics'. Unfortunately the only way I know how to do what you want is the way you have already done.
A pattern that might be more suitable for your use case might be something like:
class SuperClass
{
public static function careless():void
{
var instance:SuperClass = new SuperClass();
// ...
}
}
The only way to have static type checking in ActionScript 3 is to provide an instance of a class.
It is possible but it's expensive. You can use on a Class (not instance) the:
flash.utils.describeType
You then get an XML with a bunch of information including inheritance for that class. Like I said it's an expensive process and probably creating an instance and checking it will be in most cases faster.

How to determine if a Class object represents a class or an interface in actionscript 3.0

I am trying to develop a method in actionscript that takes a Class object as a parameter and will generate an instance of that class at runtime:
public function getComponent(componentType:Class):Object
{
return new componentType();
}
In some cases I may be passed a Class object that represents an interface instead. Naturally I cannot directly create an instance of an interface.
Is there some way to query the Class object and determine whether or not it represents an interface so that I can avoid trying to create an instance in this way?
Assume you follow a naming convention for your interface class, as in the standard IInterfaceName, name of the interface prefixed with a capital "I" following a capital letter and the rest of the class name. There are a couple of ways to do this. If you have a lot of different interfaces that could be passed as a parameter you could do this:
First import the flash.utils.getQualifiedClassName and in your function:
public function getComponent(componentType:Class):Object
{
var name:String = getQualifiedClassName( componentType ).replace(/.*\:+/g,"");
if ( name.search( /^\I[A-Z]/g ) != -1 ) {
trace( "parameter is an interface!" );
return null;
}
return new componentType();
}
You don't have to set the name variable, but this helps make the search a little more strict. You could just do this instead:
if ( getQualifiedClassName( componentType ).search( /\I[A-Z]/g ) != -1 ) {
trace( "parameter is an interface!" );
return null;
}
If you are not already aware, getQualifiedClassName returns the string format of the class name. The regular expressions check specifically for the capital IInterfaceName styled string.
Lastly, if you know it's only one interface, you could simple just do this:
if ( componentType == IMyinterface ) {
trace( "component is a IMyinterface" );
}
After some careful trial and error, I've come up with the following function:
public static function isInterface(clazz:Class):Boolean
{
return describeType(clazz).factory.extendsClass.(#type=="Object").length()==0;
}
Does anyone know if this condition always holds true for all actionscript interfaces?
I think this will work for you:
getQualifiedSuperclassName(classObject);
This will return null if you pass an interface, as interfaces does not have a superclass. It will always give you ANY kind of result for a class, as every class is basically an Object :)
Anyway, I don't think that passing such mixed values to a function is a good idea ;) And checking if the class starts with "I" is worse (sorry Bennett :))
p.s.
Keep in mind that describeType is EXTREMELY slow!

How do one cast a instance of subclass to its superclass?

So I have this superclass grid class, and a subclass of the grid class named GrassTile1, GrassTile2, etc... all of the instance of the subclasses are stored in an array. How am I suppose to convert the instance of subclass to its superclass referencing to the array?
private var backgroundGrid = []; //the array which the grids are stored in, in the main class.
public class Grid extends MovieClip
{
protected var node :PathfindNode; //the variable I wish to access, from an instance of subclass.
public function Grid(){
node = new PathfindNode();
}
}
public class GrassTile1 extends Grid { //every subclass of Grid will extends Grid
public function GrassTile1() {
// constructor code
}
}
function getBackgroundGrid(i:int,j:int):Grid{ //in the main class
return Grid(backgroundGrid[i][j]); // this line gives me an error
}
TypeError: Error #1034: Type Coercion failed: cannot convert GrassTile1#2905d5f1 to Grid.
I've tried accessing backgroundGrid[i][j].node and other ways to work around that I could think of and failed. Any Idea?
Try :
return backgroundGrid[i][j] as Grid;
Personally, Grid seems like a bad class name to use. I think Tile makes more sense, as that GrassTile1 is not a grid as I logically understand a grid. A grid might contain a collection of tiles, so doesn't sound logical to use that as a class name for tiles.
Also, where is the line where you actually call the getBackgroundGrid method ? You should try casting there, as opposed to in that method. I believe that will solve the problem.
I can't verify the line throwing the error, so we are assuming that it's the return statement. But, it could be on the other side where you are calling getBackgroundGrid.
UPDATE : I have tried a .fla using what you are describing and it works just fine, I get no error. Which is why I'm thinking we are missing something here and maybe the definition of the class is not being used. Can you put a trace in your constructors to verify what you expect is actually happening ?

OOP Proper use of interfaces in AS3

I'm designing a framework and in the process I have come across an interesting but most likely basic problem. I have a base class called CoreEngine and two other classes that extend it: CoreEngine1 and CoreEngine2. I created an interface that each of these classes would implement to increase the flexibility of my project. However, I have a problem... The definition of my methods in the interface do not match the definition in each inherited class! Each class must implement the following method:
function get avatar():AvatarBase;
The problem is that CoreEngine1 and CoreEngine2 expect a different type of avatar:
CoreEngine1
function get avatar():AvatarScaling
CoreEngine2
function get avatar():AvatarPlatform
As you can see, the return type for avatar in CoreEngine1 and CoreEngine2 do NOT match the type as specified in the interface. I was hoping that since both AvatarScaling and AvatarPlatform inherit AvatarBase that I wouldn't have a problem compiling. However, this is not the case. According to Adobe's documentation, the types MUST match the interface. I am trying to follow one of the core concepts of object oriented programming to extend the flexibility of my framework: "Program to an interface rather than an implementation". The first thing that comes to my mind is that the return type of the accessor method should be of an interface type (Maybe I just answered my own question).
I'm certain this is a common problem others have run into before. Architecturally, what do you think is the best way to solve this problem? Thanks in advance!
Regards,
Will
This is a limitation of how interfaces work and are declared.
If there's inheritance that can happen with the return types, as you've described with AvatarBase and subclasses, then I think the right approach is to make the return type the lowest common denominator and just handle the resulting object on the other end. So, if you're dealing with a CoreEngine1 object, you know you can cast the result from AvatarBase to AvatarScaling. Alternately, if you don't know the object type that you are calling get avatar() on, then you can type check the returned value. The type check would then only be needed if you're looking to call a method that exists on AvatarScaling but not on AvatarBase. I don't think returning an interface type will buy you much in this case because the only things that interface can implement would be things that all forms of Avatar share, which wouldn't be any different than methods in AvatarBase.
Like HotN and Dinko mentioned, it would be best to allow get avatar() to return AvatarBase allways and then cast the returned object as the concrete subclass.
Using Dinko's example:
public /* abstract */ class CoreEngine
{
public /* abstract */ function get avatar():AvatarBase {}
}
public function CoreEngine1 extends CoreEngine
{
override public function get avatar():AvatarBase { return new AvatarScaling(); }
}
public function CoreEngine2 extends CoreEngine
{
override public function get avatar():AvatarBase { return new AvatarPlatform(); }
}
public /* abstract */ class AvatarBase {}
public class AvatarScaling extends AvatarBase
{
public function someAvatarScalingMethod():void {}
}
public class AvatarPlatform extends AvatarBase
{
public function someAvatarPlatformMethod():void {}
}
To use a method from AvatarScaling, cast the returned object:
var c1:CoreEngine1 = new CoreEngine1();
var avatarScaling:AvatarScaling = AvatarScaling(c1.avatar());
avatarScaling.someAvatarScalingMethod();
hth
I think you answered your own question... the return type would still be AvatarBase, you need to follow the signature that you specified in the interface... but you can technically return ANY descendent of AvatarBase in that function. So doing something like
return new AvatarScaling();
in CoreEngine1 would be perfectly acceptable.
Of course in your calling function you will get back an AvatarBase instance, and you will have to know what this is in order to cast to a specific subclass.
CoreEngine1 ce1 = new CoreEngine1();
AvatarScaling avatar = ce1.avatar() as AvatarScaling;