So I am doing a simple personal project in winforms with F#. My code used to work, but now throws this exception for seemingly no reason.
An unhandled exception of type 'System.InvalidOperationException' occurred in FSharp.Core.dll
Additional information: The initialization of an object or value resulted in an object or value being accessed recursively before it was fully initialized.
The code is a member method that is being invoked from the constructor of the form itself
do
//lots of other constructor code before this point
// render the form
form.ResumeLayout(false)
form.PerformLayout()
form.ReloadGoals
//several other members before here
member form.ReloadGoals =
let x = 10 //crashes on this line
The website where I grabbed the template for the project I am using is this one.
Unfortunately I have made some substantial additions to this.
I would be glad to post more code, but I need to know what code would be relevant exactly, as I am not exactly sure and don't want to bog down the post in extraneous code.
Also I can't really find a lot of documentation on System.InvalidOperationException.
Every time I find it, it is being used as an example of an exception you can throw on your own, not what causes it.
See The F# 3.0 Language Specification (final version, PDF), ยง8.6.1 Primary Constructors in Classes:
During construction, no member on the type may be called before the last value or function definition in the type
has completed; such a call results in an InvalidOperationException.
Almost certainly, your code in the question doesn't tell the full story. If you hit the above
mentioned restriction, then there's somewhere an attempt to access a field or member not fully initialized.
Some example:
type X() as this =
let x = this.X
member __.X = 42
X()
One workaround might be to encapsulate the offending code in a member of its own and call that in the constructor instead. Another would be the wrapping in a function definition.
This will be an incomplete answer, since I cannot reproduce the problem (using F# interactive, the given example, the ReloadGoals modification, and Form.Show, the code runs fine). However, there are strange things happening:
Taken from the template, there should be a handler method for the Form.Load event, which fires when the type is fully constructed. Why is additional loading code in the constructor instead of this event handler? Load exists precisely to counter this kind of problem with unorderly initialization.
The template you are using isn't exactly sane F#. For example, initControls is a value of type unit that is evaluated where it is defined; its binding to a name is absolutely useless and should be replaced with a simple do. Writing initControls in the do block later has no effect at all. form.ResumeLayout(false); form.PerformLayout() should be equivalent to form.ResumeLayout(true), but I don't understand what these are doing in the constructor in the first place. The event handlers have two possibly unnecessary indirections: one to a delegate constructor, another to a method that has no real reason to exist -- the handlers should be lambdas or simple, private functions. Why are they public members?!
The error appearing in the question is probably caused by the usage of form in its own constructor. Move your new usage to the Load event handler, and it should work.
Personally, I would go further and ditch implementation inheritance by instantiating a plain Form and subscribing to its events. For example, in FSI, something similar to the template could be done like this:
open System.Drawing
open System.Windows.Forms
let form = new Form()
form.ClientSize <- new Size(600, 600)
form.Text <- "F# Form"
let formLabel = new Label()
formLabel.Text <- "Doubleclick test!"
formLabel.DoubleClick.Add <| fun _ -> form.Close()
form.Controls.Add(formLabel)
form.Show()
which uses no inheritance at all. (In an application, you'd use Application.Run etc instead of form.Show().) This does not run into initialization problems as easily and, additionally, is very useful if you want to encapsulate the form inside a simpler type or even just a function.
I found almost every driver that extends from uvm_driver has task get_and_drive like below. I checked the uvm source code and uvm_cookbook, but I didn't find get_and_drive. It seems it is not a uvm rule; it is more likely a convention. Who first used the task named get_and_drive(), and why do almost all people use the name get_and_drive in their driver?
task run_phase(uvm_phase phase);
get_and_drive();
endtask : run_phase
task get_and_drive();
forever begin
seq_item_port.get_next_item(req);
send_to_dut(req);
seq_item_port.item_done();
end
endtask : get_and_drive
If you look in the example/integrated/ubus directory, in the ubus_master_driver you'll see a method that's called get_and_drive(). If you go back to OVM, you'll see that in XBUS example also defined the same method in the xbus_master_driver.
Since most people learn by example, I guess the convention just stuck. I think other methodology sites (like Verification Academy) also promote the same convention.
I have a collection(arraylist) of Ref `s ,the objectify documentation says that I need to initialize collections for them to be persisted and hence modified in the future.....
Now , Ref points to an object but when I launch my app for the first time I dont have any objects in the data store...so whats the best way for me to initialize a dummy value......
Is my assumption that a Ref<> needs to point to a real object in the data store?
Two things:
You should just initialize an empty collection. You don't need to add anything to it. eg, field = new ArrayList<Ref<Thing>>();
It's actually not even required that you initialize the collection. It's just a good idea for reasons that will become apparent if you use the system for a while.
I have problem with concept and implementation of encapsulation.
Can someone explain it to me?
Encapsulation is a moderately easy concept once you realise it (probably) comes from the same base word as capsule.
It's simply a containment of information.
Encapsulation means that a class publishes only what is needed for others to use it, and no more. This is called information hiding and it means classes can totally change their internals without having an effect on any of their users.
In other words, a dictionary class can begin life as a simple array and progress to a binary tree of words then even maybe to some database access functions, all without changing the interface to it.
In an object oriented world, objects hold both their data and the methods used to manipulate data and that is the pinnacle of encapsulation. One way this is done is to make sure each object knows which functions to call to manipulate its data, and ensure the correct ones are called.
As an example, here's a class for maintaining integer lists in my mythical, but strangely Python-like and therefore hopefully easy to understand, language:
class intlist:
private int val[10] # Slots for storing numbers.
private bool used[10] # Whether slot is used or not.
public constructor:
# Mark all slots unused.
for i in 0..9:
used[i] = false
public function add(int v) throws out-of-memory:
# Check each slot.
for i in 0..9:
# If unused, store value, mark used, return.
if not used[i]:
used[i] = true
val[i] = v
return
# No free slots, so throw exception.
throw out-of-memory
public function del(int v) throws bad-value:
# Check each slot.
for i in 0..9:
# If slot used and contains value.
if used[i] and val[i] == v:
# Mark unused and return.
used[i] = false
return
# Value not found in any used slot, throw exception.
throw bad-value
public function has(int v):
# Check each slot.
for i in 0..9:
# If slot used and contains value.
if used[i] and val[i] == v:
return true
# Value not found in any used slot.
return false
Now the only information published here are the constructor and three functions for adding, deleting, and checking for values (including what exceptions can be thrown).
Callers need know nothing about the internal data structures being used (val and used), or the properties of the functions beyond their "signatures" (the content of the "function" lines).
Because everything else is encapsulated, it can changed it at will without breaking the code that uses it.
I could, for example, do any of the following:
make the arrays longer;
store the data sorted, or in a binary tree instead of an array to make it faster.
change the used array into a count array (initialised to zero) so that many occurrences of a single number use just the one slot, increasing the quantity of numbers that can be stored where there are duplicates.
store the numbers in a database, located on a ZX-80 retro-computer located in outback Australia, and powered by methane produced from kangaroo droppings (though you may notice a latency change).
Basically, as long as the published API doesn't change, we am free to do whatever we want. In fact, we can also add things to the API without breaking other code, I just can't delete or change anything that users already rely on.
You should note that encapsulation isn't something new with object orientation. It's been around for ages, even in C by ensuring that information is hidden within a module (usually a source file or group thereof with private headers).
In fact, the stdio.h FILE* stuff is a good example of this. You don't care what's actually behind the pointer since all the functions which use it know how to do their stuff.
link text
I always explain it to people is think of yourself as an object. Other people can see your height, they can see if your smiling, but your inner thoughts, maybe the reason while your smiling, only you know.
Encapsulation is more than just defining accessor and mutator methods for a class. It is broader concept of object-oriented programming that consists in minimizing the interdependence between classes and it is typically implemented through information hiding.
The beauty of encapsulation is the power of changing things without affecting its users.
In a object-oriented programming language like Java, you achieve encapsulation by hiding details using the accessibility modifiers (public, protected, private, plus no modifier which implies package private). With these levels of accessibility you control the level of encapsulation, the less restrictive the level, the more expensive change is when it happens and the more coupled the class is with other dependent classes (i.e. user classes, subclasses).
Therefore, the goal is not to hide the data itself, but the implementation details on how this data is manipulated.
The idea is to provide a public interface through which you gain access to this data. You can later change the internal representation of the data without compromising the public interface of the class. On the contrary, by exposing the data itself, you compromise encapsulation, and therefore, the capacity of changing the way you manipulate the data without affecting its users. You create a dependency with the data itself, and not with the public interface of the class. You would be creating a perfect cocktail for trouble when "change" finally finds you.
There are several reasons why you might want to encapsulate access to your fields. Joshua Bloch in his book Effective Java, in Item 14: Minimize the accessibility of classes and members, mentions several compelling reasons, which I quote here:
You can limit the values that can be stored in a field (i.e. gender must be F or M).
You can take actions when the field is modified (trigger event, validate, etc).
You can provide thread safety by synchronizing the method.
You can switch to a new data representation (i.e. calculated fields, different data type)
However, encapsulation is more than hiding fields. In Java you can hide entire classes, by this, hiding the implementation details of an entire API. Think, for example, in the method Arrays.asList(). It returns a List implementation, but you do no care which implementation, as long as it satisfies the List interface, right?. The implementation can be changed in the future without affecting the users of the method.
The Beauty of Encapsulation
Now, in my opinion, to really understand encapsulation, one must first understand abstraction.
Think, for example, in the level of abstraction in the concept of a car. A car is complex in its internal implementation. They have several subsystem, like a transmission system, a break system, a fuel system, etc.
However, we have simplified its abstraction, and we interact with all cars in the world through the public interface of their abstraction. We know that all cars have a steering wheel through which we control direction, they have a pedal that when you press it you accelerate the car and control speed, and another one that when you press it you make it stop, and you have a gear stick that let you control if you go forward or backwards. These features constitute the public interface of the car abstraction. In the morning you can drive a sedan and then get out of it and drive an SUV in the afternoon as if it was the same thing.
However, few of us know the details of how all these features are implemented under the hood. Think of the time when cars did not have a hydraulics directional system. One day, the car manufactures invented it, and they decide it to put it in cars from there on. Still, this did not change the way in which users where interacting with them. At most, users experienced an improvement in the use of the directional system. A change like this was possible because the internal implementation of a car is encapsulated. Changes can be safely done without affecting its public interface.
Now, think that car manufactures decided to put the fuel cap below the car, and not in one of its sides. You go and buy one of these new cars, and when you run out of gas you go to the gas station, and you do not find the fuel cap. Suddenly you realize is below the car, but you cannot reach it with the gas pump hose. Now, we have broken the public interface contract, and therefore, the entire world breaks, it falls apart because things are not working the way it was expected. A change like this would cost millions. We would need to change all gas pumps in the world. When we break encapsulation we have to pay a price.
So, as you can see, the goal of encapsulation is to minimize interdependence and facilitate change. You maximize encapsulation by minimizing the exposure of implementation details. The state of a class should only be accessed through its public interface.
I really recommend you to read a paper by Alan Snyder called Encapsulation and Inheritance in Object-Oriented programming Languages. This link points to the original paper on ACM, but I am pretty sure you will be able to find a PDF copy through Google.
Encapsulation - wrapping of data in single unit. also we can say hiding the information of essential details.
example
You have a mobile phone.... there it some interface which helps u to interact with cell phone and u can uses the services of mobile phone. But the actually working in cell phone is hide. u don't know how it works internally.
hide/bind something : eg: a capsule (which we consume when v r ill)hide/bind some powder form in itself,, means that capsule encapsulate the powder contained it.
Binding of data and behavior i.e functionality of an object in a secured and controlled manner.
or the best example of encapsulation is a CLASS because a class hides class variables/functions from outside d class..
Encapsulation:
Wrapping up data member and method together into a single unit (i.e. Class) is called Encapsulation.
Eg: we can consider a capsule. Encapsulation means hiding the internal details of an object, i.e. how an object does something. Here capsule is a single Unit contain many things. But we cant see what is there in side capsule.
This is the technique used to protect information about an object from other objects. Like variable we can set as private and property as Public. When we access the property then we validate and set it.
We can go through some other examples. Our Laptop. We can use Laptop but what operations are happening inside that we are not knowing. But we can use that. Same like mobile, TV etc.
We can conclude that a group of related properties, methods, and other members are treated as a single unit or object.An encapsulated object is often called an abstract data type.
There are several other ways that an encapsulation can be used, as an example we can take the usage of an interface. The interface can be used to hide the information of an implemented class.
//Declare as Private
private string _LegName;
// Property Set as public
public string LegName
{
get
{
return _LegName;
}
set
{
_LegName=value;
}
public class LegMain
{
public static int Main(string[] args)
{
Leg L= new Leg();
d.LegName="Right Leg";
Console.WriteLine("The Legis :{0}",d.LegName);return 0;
}
}
Note: Encapsulation provides a way to protect data from accidental corruption.
Thank you
Encapsulation means hiding the data. In other words a class only exposes those properties or information which is authorized to be seen. Consider the below exapmle where a certain property called ConfidentialMessage is accesible only to the Admin role. This property is made private and is returned through another method which checks the role of an user and return the message only for admin.
public class Message
{
public Message()
{
ConfidentialMessage = "I am Nemo";
}
private string ConfidentialMessage { get; set; }
public string GetMessage(string name)
{
string message = string.Empty;
if (name == "Admin")
{
message = this.ConfidentialMessage;
}
return message;
}
}
Putting definition of encapsulate
enclose in a capsule, from en- "make, put in" + capsule + -ate .
now capsule meaning is box, case
In real life example if you put things on desk open then it is accessible to anyone but if you put in case then it is accessible with the key of case to open.
Same way in class if you create a variable then it accessible whenever you create object of that class.But if you create function to access the variable then you have created case and function is key to access the variable.
So in programming language we are creating wrapper of the data by using getter and setter and making it private variable.
Encapsulation is a capsule, consider it to be a class enclosing or hiding fields, properties and functions.
Please check below url encapsulation is simplified with simple programming example.
http://itsforlavanya.blogspot.com/2020/08/encapsulation.html?m=1
I only wanted to allow one instance of my C extension class to be made, so I wanted to include the singleton module.
void Init_mousetest() {
VALUE mouseclass = rb_define_class("MyMouse",rb_cObject);
rb_require("singleton");
VALUE singletonmodule = rb_const_get(rb_cObject,rb_intern("Singleton"));
rb_include_module(mouseclass,singletonmodule);
rb_funcall(singletonmodule,rb_intern("included"),1,mouseclass);
### ^ Why do I need this line here?
rb_define_method(mouseclass,"run",method_run,0);
rb_define_method(mouseclass,"spawn",method_spawn,0);
rb_define_method(mouseclass,"stop",method_stop,0);
}
As I understand it, what that line does is the same as Singleton.included(MyMouse), but if I try to invoke that, I get
irb(main):006:0> Singleton.included(MyMouse)
NoMethodError: private method `included' called for Singleton:Module
from (irb):6
from C:/Ruby19/bin/irb:12:in `<main>'
Why does rb_include_module behave differently than I would expect it to? Also any tangential discussions/explanations or related articles are appreciated. Ruby beginner here.
Also it seems like I could have just kept my extension as simple as possible and just hack some kind of interface later on to ensure I only allow one instance. Or just put my mouse related methods into a module... Any of that make sense?
according to http://www.groupsrv.com/computers/about105620.html the rb_include_module() is actually just Module#append_features.
Apparently Module#include calls Module#append_features and Module#included. So in our C code we must also call included. Since clearly something important happens there.