Scala.Array includes a function toArray, as an implicit import from ArrayOps.
Are there any use cases for Array.toArray or will it always return a copy of the object?
ArrayOps inherits toArray from GenTraversableOnce (and a default implementation is provided in TraversableOnce)
In case of an Array it's pointless, but the method is there for all the other subclasses of GenTraversableOnce, like Map, List, Set and many others.
Analogously, Map inherits a pointless toMap method, List a toList, Set a toSet and so on.
In the specific case of toArray, the default implemention provided in the TraversableOnce trait is overridden by ArrayOps.
Calling toArray on an Array will return a new one only if the runtime class of the destination type is different, otherwise it will just cast the Array to the appropriate type and return the same instance.
So, generally speaking, calling toArray on an instance of Array is useless, although not significantly expensive.
Related
Is there a way (I'm sure there is out of runtime check...) to specify that a parameter or a variable in general conforms to multiple types? to avoid doing something such as
work (a_printer: PRINTER; a_scanner: SCANNER)
do
a_printer.print
a_scanner.scan
-- OR without second parameter
if attached {SCANNER} a_printer as l_scanner then
l_scanner.scan
else
throw RuntimeError
end
end
If feature work belongs to a class that may have formal generic parameters, it could be defined as taking one argument of the corresponding formal generic type:
class X [D -> {PRINTER, SCANNER}] feature
work (device: D)
do
device.scan
device.print
end
end
Then, at the caller site, one could make the call
x.work (multi_function_device)
where x has an appropriate type, e.g. X [MULTI_FUNCTION_PRINTER].
If work could also be declared and implemented as a class feature, the temporary variable could be avoided:
{X [like multi_function_device]}.work (multi_function_device)
If the auxiliary class X is not an option, the current version of the language provides no means to declare an argument as conforming to more than 1 type (e.g., work (d: {PRINTER, SCANNER})), so you would have to resort to preconditions like
work (p: PRINTER)
require
attached {SCANNER} p
do
check
from_precondition: attached {SCANNER} p as s
then
s.scan
end
p.print
end
I think that, if possible, you should use a common ancestor to your multiple types. If you cannot (if you are using library types), you can create descendant classes (MY_PRINTER inherit from PRINTER and DEVICE and MY_SCANNER inherit from SCANNER and DEVICE). Another way is to use ANY as the type, but it is not the best solution.
I fully understand that a System.Array is immutable.
Given that, why does it have an Add() method?
It does not appear in the output of Get-Member.
$a = #('now', 'then')
$a.Add('whatever')
Yes, I know this fails and I know why it fails. I am not asking for suggestions to use [System.Collections.ArrayList] or [System.Collections.Generic.List[object]].
[System.Array] implements [System.Collections.IList], and the latter has an .Add() method.
That Array implements IList, which is an interface that also covers resizable collections, may be surprising - it sounds like there are historical reasons for it[1]
.
In C#, this surprise is hard to stumble upon, because you need to explicitly cast to IList or use an IList-typed variable in order to even access the .Add() method.
By contrast, since version 3, PowerShell surfaces even a type's explicit interface implementations as direct members of a given type's instance. (Explicit interface implementations are those referencing the interface explicitly in their implementation, such as IList.Add() rather than just .Add(); explicit interface implementations are not a direct part of the implementing type's public interface, which is why C# requires a cast / interface-typed variable to access them).
As a byproduct of this design, in PowerShell the .Add() method can be called directly on System.Array instances, which makes it easier to stumble upon the problem, because you may not realize that you're invoking an interface method. In the case of an array, the IList.Add() implementation (rightfully) throws an exception stating that Collection was of a fixed size; the latter is an exception of type NotSupportedException, which is how types implementing an interface are expected to report non-support for parts of an interface.
What helps is that the Get-Member cmdlet and even just referencing a method without invoking it - simply by omitting () - allow you to inspect a method to determine whether it is native to the type or an interface implementation:
PS> (1, 2).Add # Inspect the definition of a sample array's .Add() method
OverloadDefinitions
-------------------
int IList.Add(System.Object value)
As you can see, the output reveals that the .Add() method belongs to the Ilist interface.
[1] Optional reading: Collection-related interfaces in .NET with respect to mutability
Disclaimer: This is not my area of expertise. If my explanation is incorrect / can stand improvement, do tell us.
The root of the hierarchy of collection-related interfaces is ICollection (non-generic, since v1) and ICollection<T> (generic, since v2).
(They in turn implement IEnumerable / IEnumerable<T>, whose only member is the .GetEnumerator() method.)
While the non-generic ICollection interface commendably makes no assumptions about a collection's mutability, its generic counterpart (ICollection<T>) unfortunately does - it includes methods for modifying the collection (the docs even state the interface's purpose as "to manipulate generic collections" (emphasis added)). In the non-generic v1 world, the same had happened, just one level below: the non-generic IList includes collection-modifying methods.
By including mutation methods in these interfaces, even read-only/fixed-size lists/collections (those whose number and sequence of elements cannot be changed, but their element values may) and fully immutable lists/collections (those that additionally don't allow changing their elements' values) were forced to implement the mutating methods, while indicating non-support for them with NotSupportedException exceptions.
While read-only collection implementations have existed since v1.1 (e.g, ReadOnlyCollectionBase), in terms of interfaces it wasn't until .NET v4.5 that IReadOnlyCollection<T> and IImmutableList<T> were introduced (with the latter, along with all types in the System.Collections.Immutable namespace, only available as a downloadable NuGet package).
However, since interfaces that derive from (implement) other interfaces can never exclude members, neither IReadOnlyCollection<T> nor IImmutableCollection<T> can derive from ICollection<T> and must therefore derive directly from the shared root of enumerables, IEnumerable<T>.
Similarly, more specialized interfaces such as IReadOnlyList<T> that implement IReadOnlyCollection<T> can therefore not implement IList<T> and ICollection<T>.
More fundamentally, starting with a clean slate would offer the following solution, which reverses the current logic:
Make the major collection interfaces mutation-agnostic, which means:
They should neither offer mutation methods,
nor should they make any guarantees with respect to immutability.
Create sub-interfaces that:
add members depending on the specific level of mutability.
make immutability guarantees, if needed.
Using the example of ICollection and IList, we'd get the following interface hierarchy:
IEnumerable<T> # has only a .GetEnumerator() method
ICollection<T> # adds a .Count property (only)
IResizableCollection<T> # adds .Add/Clear/Remove() methods
IList<T> # adds read-only indexed access
IListMutableElements<T> # adds writeable indexed access
IResizableList<T> # must also implement IResizableCollection<T>
IResizableListMutableElements<T> # adds writeable indexed access
IImmutableList<T> # guarantees immutability
Note: Only the salient methods/properties are mentioned in the comments above.
Note that these new ICollection<T> and IList<T> interfaces would offer no mutation methods (no .Add() methods, ..., no assignable indexing).
IImmutableList<T> would differ from IList<T> by guaranteeing full immutability (and, as currently, offer mutation-of-a-copy-only methods).
System.Array could then safely and fully implement IList<T>, without consumers of the interface having to worry about NotSupportedExceptions.
To "Add" to #mklement0's answer: [System.Array] implements [System.Collections.IList] which specifies an Add() method.
But to answer why have an Add() if it doesn't work? Well, we haven't looked at the other properties, i.e. IsFixedSize :
PS > $a = #('now', 'then')
PS > $a.IsFixedSize
True
So, a [System.Array] is just a [System.Collections.IList] that is a Fixed Size. When we look back at the Add() method, it explicitly defines that if the List is Read-Only or Fixed Size, throw NotSupportedException which it does.
I believe the essence is not, "Let's have a function that just throws an error message for no reason", or to expand on it, No other reason than to fulfill an Interface, but it actually is providing a warning that you are legitimately doing something that you shouldn't do.
It's the typical Interface ideas, you can have an IAnimal type, with an GetLeg() method. This method would be used 90% of all animals, which makes it a good reason for implementing into the base Interface, but would throw an error when you use it against a Snake object because you didn't first check the .HasFeet property first.
The Add() method is a really good method for a List Interface, because it is an essential method for Non-Readonly and Non-Fixed length lists. We are the ones being stupid by not checking that the list is not IsFixedSize before calling an Add() method that would not work. i.e. this falls into the category of $null checks before trying to use things.
So in Swift, what's the difference between
var arr = ["Foo", "Bar"] // normal array in Swift
and
var arr = NSMutableArray.array() // 'NSMutableArray' object
["Foo", "Bar"].map {
arr.addObject($0)
}
other than being different implementations of the same thing.
Both appear to have all the basic features that one might need (.count, the ability to insert/remove objects etc.).
NSMutableArray was invented back in the Obj-C days, obviously to provide a more modern solution instead of the regular C-style arrays. But how does it compare to Swift's built-in array?
Which one is safer and/or faster?
The most important difference, in my opinion, is that NSMutableArray is a class type and Array is a value type. Ergo, an NSMutableArray will be passed as a reference, whereas a Swift Array will be passed by value.
Furthermore NSMutableArray is a subclass of NSObject whereas Array has no parent class. - this means that you get access to all NSObject methods and other 'goodies' when utilising NSMutableArray.
An NSMutableArray will not be copied when you amend it, a Swift Array will be.
Which one is best really depends on your application.
I find (when working with UIKit and Cocoa touch) that NSMutableArray is great when I need a persistent model, whereas Array is great for performance and throw away arrays.
These are just my initial thoughts, I'm sure someone from the community can offer much deeper insight.
Reference Type When:(NSMutableArray)
Subclasses of NSObject must be class types
Comparing instance identity with === makes sense
You want to create shared, mutable state
Value Type When: (Swift array)
Comparing instance data with == makes sense (Equatable protocol)
You want copies to have independent state
The data will be used in code across multiple threads (avoid explicit synchronization)
Interestingly enough, the Swift standard library heavily favors value types:Primitive types (Int, Double, String, …) are value types
Standard collections (Array, Dictionary, Set, …) are value types
Aside from what is illustrated above, the choice really depends on what you are trying to implement. As a rule of thumb, if there is no specific constraint that forces you to opt for a reference type, or you are not sure which option is best for your specific use case, you could start by implementing your data structure using a value type. If needed, you should be able to convert it to a reference type later with relatively little effort.
Conclusion:
Reference types incur more memory overhead, from reference counting and also for storing its data on the heap.
It's worth knowing that copying value types is relatively cheap in Swift,
But it’s important to keep in mind that if your value types become too large, the performance cost of copying can become greater than the cost of using reference types.
I have a GObject "A" which creates an instance of another GObject "B" in its constructor.
The "B" object needs to be passed several construction-only properties. Now when creating an instance of object "A" I want to allow passing values for these properties through the constructor of object "A" on to the constructor of object "B".
The only way I have found to do that was to create identical properties for object "A" and pass their values on to the constructor of "B". These properties would have no further meaning to "A" so this seems like a kludge.
Is there a better way to do what I want?
Have A inherit from B. Then A has all of B's properties automatically.
Don't use properties in A, but instead pass B's properties (or even better, an already-constructed B object) as parameters to A's constructor.
Delay construction of B until A can figure out how it nees to configure B. Add a private flag to A, b_initialized or something, that tells you whether A's internal pointer to B is valid.
Some more clarification on the second suggestion:
A's stuff is constructed in the a_init() function that is provided for by the G_DEFINE_TYPE() macro. But that's not how you get an instance of A. It's usual to write a function, which is part of the public interface of A, like this:
A *a_new()
{
return (A *)g_object_new(TYPE_A, NULL);
}
You can easily extend this to include other parameters:
A *a_new(int b_param_1, int b_param_2)
{
A *a = (A *)g_object_new(TYPE_A, NULL);
a->priv->b = b_new(b_param_1, b_param_2);
return a;
}
This has the disadvantage of leaving your A object in an invalid state (i.e., without a B) if you construct it using g_object_new, for example if you're trying to build it from a GtkBuilder file. If that's a problem, I still strongly suggest refactoring.
Use dependency injection, pass an already initialized object of type B to the constructor of A.
That way the client that is using your class can decide whether to pass in different kinds of Bs (if it makes sense you can even use an interface instead of a class as the B type, writing code against interfaces is generally better than writing code against implementations).
Deriving A from B only makes sense if it really is a specialization of it's parent class.
From the question it isn't clear if derivation makes sense, but it's an often overused method for composition.
I have created an array in the implementation of my class loginController. Now I want to use this array (with its objects) in another class of my project. What is the right way to import it?
You really need to specify the language.
In general, if the array is a member variable in one class, it's considered bad form to directly use it from another class. This violates the "encapsulation" idea that is quite the thing in object-oriented programming.
The preferred thing to do is often to add methods, called "getters" and "setters", to the class owning the array, or make it available by some other more structural means, which depend on the exact semantics and usage of the array. It might, for instance, not be required that outside users even know that it is an array.
There is no right way given this information. What is located in the array, only integers or strings/objects etc. Do you store objects of pointers to objects?
Passing the array is the sameway as passing any other object to a function
The general answer would be: declare it as public
It is not very good thing to do but as a beginner, you can start with that.