Search Results

Search found 213 results on 9 pages for 'syntactic sugar'.

Page 4/9 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  | Next Page >

  • Nested Object Forms not working as expected

    - by Craig Walker
    I'm trying to get a nested model forms view working. As far as I can tell I'm doing everything right, but it still does not work. I'm on Rails 3 beta 3. My models are as expected: class Recipe < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :ingredients, :dependent => :destroy accepts_nested_attributes_for :ingredients attr_accessible :name end class Ingredient < ActiveRecord::Base attr_accessible :name, :sort_order, :amount belongs_to :recipe end I can use Recipe.ingredients_attributes= as expected: recipe = Recipe.new recipe.ingredients_attributes = [ {:name=>"flour", :amount=>"1 cup"}, {:name=>"sugar", :amount=>"2 cups"}] recipe.ingredients.size # -> 2; ingredients contains expected instances However, I cannot create new object graphs using a hash of parameters as shown in the documentation: params = { :name => "test", :ingredients_attributes => [ {:name=>"flour", :amount=>"1 cup"}, {:name=>"sugar", :amount=>"2 cups"}] } recipe = Recipe.new(params) recipe.name # -> "test" recipe.ingredients # -> []; no ingredient instances in the collection Is there something I'm doing wrong here? Or is there a problem in the Rails 3 beta?

    Read the article

  • Raw types and subtyping

    - by Dmitrii
    We have generic class SomeClass<T>{ } We can write the line: SomeClass s= new SomeClass<String>(); It's ok, because raw type is supertype for generic type. But SomeClass<String> s= new SomeClass(); is correct to. Why is it correct? I thought that type erasure was before type checking, but it's wrong. From Hacker's Guide to Javac When the Java compiler is invoked with default compile policy it performs the following passes: parse: Reads a set of *.java source files and maps the resulting token sequence into AST-Nodes. enter: Enters symbols for the definitions into the symbol table. process annotations: If Requested, processes annotations found in the specified compilation units. attribute: Attributes the Syntax trees. This step includes name resolution, type checking and constant folding. flow: Performs data ow analysis on the trees from the previous step. This includes checks for assignments and reachability. desugar: Rewrites the AST and translates away some syntactic sugar. generate: Generates Source Files or Class Files. Generic is syntax sugar, hence type erasure invoked at 6 pass, after type checking, which invoked at 4 pass. I'm confused.

    Read the article

  • I need to sort the facets that come back from SOLR by relevancy

    - by Pinguthepenguin
    I have within my SOLR index song objects which belong to a higher level album object. An example is shown below: <song> <album title>Blood Sugar Sex Magic</album title> <song title>Under the Bridge</song title> <description>A sad song about junkies</description> </song> What I can do at the moment is create a facet on the album title so that a search on songs will also show me what albums contain hits for that keyword. The default behaviour for SOLR is that the facets are shown in the order of most hits to least. However what I want to achieve is the facet list to be sorted according to the relevancy of the top hit for that album. For example a search on the word "sad" may show a facet with one hit for "Blood Sugar Sex Magic" and there may also be an album called "Sad Clown songs" where there are 10 hits. "Sad clown songs" will show as the first facet even though it may be that "Under the bridge" comes up as the most relevant song. My question is how can I get all the facets back but then have them ordered by the relevancy of the songs within them? If I would need to change or extend some underlying SOLR code what would that be? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • What are the pros and cons of Coffeescript?

    - by Philip
    Of course one big pro is the amount of syntactic sugar leading to shorter code in a lot of cases. On http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/ there are impressive examples. On the other hand I have doubts that these examples represent code of complex real world applications. In my code for instance I never add functions to bare objects but rather to their prototypes. Moreover the prototype feature is hidden from the user, suggesting classical OOP rather than idiomatic Javascript. The array comprehension example would look in my code probably like this: cubes = $.map(list, math.cube); // which is 8 characters less using jQuery...

    Read the article

  • F# for the C# Programmer

    - by mbcrump
    Are you a C# Programmer and can’t make it past a day without seeing or hearing someone mention F#?  Today, I’m going to walk you through your first F# application and give you a brief introduction to the language. Sit back this will only take about 20 minutes. Introduction Microsoft's F# programming language is a functional language for the .NET framework that was originally developed at Microsoft Research Cambridge by Don Syme. In October 2007, the senior vice president of the developer division at Microsoft announced that F# was being officially productized to become a fully supported .NET language and professional developers were hired to create a team of around ten people to build the product version. In September 2008, Microsoft released the first Community Technology Preview (CTP), an official beta release, of the F# distribution . In December 2008, Microsoft announced that the success of this CTP had encouraged them to escalate F# and it is now will now be shipped as one of the core languages in Visual Studio 2010 , alongside C++, C# 4.0 and VB. The F# programming language incorporates many state-of-the-art features from programming language research and ossifies them in an industrial strength implementation that promises to revolutionize interactive, parallel and concurrent programming. Advantages of F# F# is the world's first language to combine all of the following features: Type inference: types are inferred by the compiler and generic definitions are created automatically. Algebraic data types: a succinct way to represent trees. Pattern matching: a comprehensible and efficient way to dissect data structures. Active patterns: pattern matching over foreign data structures. Interactive sessions: as easy to use as Python and Mathematica. High performance JIT compilation to native code: as fast as C#. Rich data structures: lists and arrays built into the language with syntactic support. Functional programming: first-class functions and tail calls. Expressive static type system: finds bugs during compilation and provides machine-verified documentation. Sequence expressions: interrogate huge data sets efficiently. Asynchronous workflows: syntactic support for monadic style concurrent programming with cancellations. Industrial-strength IDE support: multithreaded debugging, and graphical throwback of inferred types and documentation. Commerce friendly design and a viable commercial market. Lets try a short program in C# then F# to understand the differences. Using C#: Create a variable and output the value to the console window: Sample Program. using System;   namespace ConsoleApplication9 {     class Program     {         static void Main(string[] args)         {             var a = 2;             Console.WriteLine(a);             Console.ReadLine();         }     } } A breeze right? 14 Lines of code. We could have condensed it a bit by removing the “using” statment and tossing the namespace. But this is the typical C# program. Using F#: Create a variable and output the value to the console window: To start, open Visual Studio 2010 or Visual Studio 2008. Note: If using VS2008, then please download the SDK first before getting started. If you are using VS2010 then you are already setup and ready to go. So, click File-> New Project –> Other Languages –> Visual F# –> Windows –> F# Application. You will get the screen below. Go ahead and enter a name and click OK. Now, you will notice that the Solution Explorer contains the following: Double click the Program.fs and enter the following information. Hit F5 and it should run successfully. Sample Program. open System let a = 2        Console.WriteLine a As Shown below: Hmm, what? F# did the same thing in 3 lines of code. Show me the interactive evaluation that I keep hearing about. The F# development environment for Visual Studio 2010 provides two different modes of execution for F# code: Batch compilation to a .NET executable or DLL. (This was accomplished above). Interactive evaluation. (Demo is below) The interactive session provides a > prompt, requires a double semicolon ;; identifier at the end of a code snippet to force evaluation, and returns the names (if any) and types of resulting definitions and values. To access the F# prompt, in VS2010 Goto View –> Other Window then F# Interactive. Once you have the interactive window type in the following expression: 2+3;; as shown in the screenshot below: I hope this guide helps you get started with the language, please check out the following books for further information. F# Books for further reading   Foundations of F# Author: Robert Pickering An introduction to functional programming with F#. Including many samples, this book walks through the features of the F# language and libraries, and covers many of the .NET Framework features which can be leveraged with F#.       Functional Programming for the Real World: With Examples in F# and C# Authors: Tomas Petricek and Jon Skeet An introduction to functional programming for existing C# developers written by Tomas Petricek and Jon Skeet. This book explains the core principles using both C# and F#, shows how to use functional ideas when designing .NET applications and presents practical examples such as design of domain specific language, development of multi-core applications and programming of reactive applications.

    Read the article

  • QotD: Peter Wayner on Programming trend No. 1

    - by $utils.escapeXML($entry.author)
    Programming trend No. 1: The JVM is not just for Java anymoreA long time ago, Sun created Java and shared the virtual machine with the world. By the time Microsoft created C#, people recognized that the VM didn't have to be limited to one language. Anything that could be transformed into the byte code could use it.Now, it seems that everyone is building their language to do just that. Leave the job of building a virtual machine to Sun/Oracle, and concentrate your efforts on the syntactic bells and structural whistles, goes the mantra today.Peter Wayner in an article on "11 programming trends to watch" at ITWorld.

    Read the article

  • Understanding C# async / await (1) Compilation

    - by Dixin
    Now the async / await keywords are in C#. Just like the async and ! in F#, this new C# feature provides great convenience. There are many nice documents talking about how to use async / await in specific scenarios, like using async methods in ASP.NET 4.5 and in ASP.NET MVC 4, etc. In this article we will look at the real code working behind the syntax sugar. According to MSDN: The async modifier indicates that the method, lambda expression, or anonymous method that it modifies is asynchronous. Since lambda expression / anonymous method will be compiled to normal method, we will focus on normal async method. Preparation First of all, Some helper methods need to make up. internal class HelperMethods { internal static int Method(int arg0, int arg1) { // Do some IO. WebClient client = new WebClient(); Enumerable.Repeat("http://weblogs.asp.net/dixin", 10) .Select(client.DownloadString).ToArray(); int result = arg0 + arg1; return result; } internal static Task<int> MethodTask(int arg0, int arg1) { Task<int> task = new Task<int>(() => Method(arg0, arg1)); task.Start(); // Hot task (started task) should always be returned. return task; } internal static void Before() { } internal static void Continuation1(int arg) { } internal static void Continuation2(int arg) { } } Here Method() is a long running method doing some IO. Then MethodTask() wraps it into a Task and return that Task. Nothing special here. Await something in async method Since MethodTask() returns Task, let’s try to await it: internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> MethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { int result = await HelperMethods.MethodTask(arg0, arg1); return result; } } Because we used await in the method, async must be put on the method. Now we get the first async method. According to the naming convenience, it is called MethodAsync. Of course a async method can be awaited. So we have a CallMethodAsync() to call MethodAsync(): internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> CallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { int result = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); return result; } } After compilation, MethodAsync() and CallMethodAsync() becomes the same logic. This is the code of MethodAsyc(): internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { MethodAsyncStateMachine methodAsyncStateMachine = new MethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; methodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref methodAsyncStateMachine); return methodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } It just creates and starts a state machine MethodAsyncStateMachine: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { public int State; public AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int> Builder; public int Arg0; public int Arg1; public int Result; private TaskAwaiter<int> awaitor; void IAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext() { try { if (this.State != 0) { this.awaitor = HelperMethods.MethodTask(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaitor.IsCompleted) { this.State = 0; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaitor, ref this); return; } } else { this.State = -1; } this.Result = this.awaitor.GetResult(); } catch (Exception exception) { this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetException(exception); return; } this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetResult(this.Result); } [DebuggerHidden] void IAsyncStateMachine.SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine param0) { this.Builder.SetStateMachine(param0); } } The generated code has been cleaned up so it is readable and can be compiled. Several things can be observed here: The async modifier is gone, which shows, unlike other modifiers (e.g. static), there is no such IL/CLR level “async” stuff. It becomes a AsyncStateMachineAttribute. This is similar to the compilation of extension method. The generated state machine is very similar to the state machine of C# yield syntax sugar. The local variables (arg0, arg1, result) are compiled to fields of the state machine. The real code (await HelperMethods.MethodTask(arg0, arg1)) is compiled into MoveNext(): HelperMethods.MethodTask(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(). CallMethodAsync() will create and start its own state machine CallMethodAsyncStateMachine: internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(CallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> CallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { CallMethodAsyncStateMachine callMethodAsyncStateMachine = new CallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; callMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref callMethodAsyncStateMachine); return callMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } CallMethodAsyncStateMachine has the same logic as MethodAsyncStateMachine above. The detail of the state machine will be discussed soon. Now it is clear that: async /await is a C# level syntax sugar. There is no difference to await a async method or a normal method. A method returning Task will be awaitable. State machine and continuation To demonstrate more details in the state machine, a more complex method is created: internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { HelperMethods.Before(); int resultOfAwait1 = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); int resultOfAwait2 = await MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; return resultToReturn; } } In this method: There are multiple awaits. There are code before the awaits, and continuation code after each await After compilation, this multi-await method becomes the same as above single-await methods: internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine = new MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Arg2 = arg2, Arg3 = arg3, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine); return multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } It creates and starts one single state machine, MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { public int State; public AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int> Builder; public int Arg0; public int Arg1; public int Arg2; public int Arg3; public int ResultOfAwait1; public int ResultOfAwait2; public int ResultToReturn; private TaskAwaiter<int> awaiter; void IAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext() { try { switch (this.State) { case -1: HelperMethods.Before(); this.awaiter = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaiter.IsCompleted) { this.State = 0; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaiter, ref this); } break; case 0: this.ResultOfAwait1 = this.awaiter.GetResult(); HelperMethods.Continuation1(this.ResultOfAwait1); this.awaiter = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg2, this.Arg3).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaiter.IsCompleted) { this.State = 1; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaiter, ref this); } break; case 1: this.ResultOfAwait2 = this.awaiter.GetResult(); HelperMethods.Continuation2(this.ResultOfAwait2); this.ResultToReturn = this.ResultOfAwait1 + this.ResultOfAwait2; this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetResult(this.ResultToReturn); break; } } catch (Exception exception) { this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetException(exception); } } [DebuggerHidden] void IAsyncStateMachine.SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine stateMachine) { this.Builder.SetStateMachine(stateMachine); } } The above code is already cleaned up, but there are still a lot of things. More clean up can be done, and the state machine can be very simple: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { // State: // -1: Begin // 0: 1st await is done // 1: 2nd await is done // ... // -2: End public int State; public TaskCompletionSource<int> ResultToReturn; // int resultToReturn ... public int Arg0; // int Arg0 public int Arg1; // int arg1 public int Arg2; // int arg2 public int Arg3; // int arg3 public int ResultOfAwait1; // int resultOfAwait1 ... public int ResultOfAwait2; // int resultOfAwait2 ... private Task<int> currentTaskToAwait; /// <summary> /// Moves the state machine to its next state. /// </summary> void IAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext() { try { switch (this.State) { // Orginal code is splitted by "case"s: // case -1: // HelperMethods.Before(); // MethodAsync(Arg0, arg1); // case 0: // int resultOfAwait1 = await ... // HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); // MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); // case 1: // int resultOfAwait2 = await ... // HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); // int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; // return resultToReturn; case -1: // -1 is begin. HelperMethods.Before(); // Code before 1st await. this.currentTaskToAwait = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg0, this.Arg1); // 1st task to await // When this.currentTaskToAwait is done, run this.MoveNext() and go to case 0. this.State = 0; IAsyncStateMachine this1 = this; // Cannot use "this" in lambda so create a local variable. this.currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(_ => this1.MoveNext()); // Callback break; case 0: // Now 1st await is done. this.ResultOfAwait1 = this.currentTaskToAwait.Result; // Get 1st await's result. HelperMethods.Continuation1(this.ResultOfAwait1); // Code after 1st await and before 2nd await. this.currentTaskToAwait = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg2, this.Arg3); // 2nd task to await // When this.currentTaskToAwait is done, run this.MoveNext() and go to case 1. this.State = 1; IAsyncStateMachine this2 = this; // Cannot use "this" in lambda so create a local variable. this.currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(_ => this2.MoveNext()); // Callback break; case 1: // Now 2nd await is done. this.ResultOfAwait2 = this.currentTaskToAwait.Result; // Get 2nd await's result. HelperMethods.Continuation2(this.ResultOfAwait2); // Code after 2nd await. int resultToReturn = this.ResultOfAwait1 + this.ResultOfAwait2; // Code after 2nd await. // End with resultToReturn. this.State = -2; // -2 is end. this.ResultToReturn.SetResult(resultToReturn); break; } } catch (Exception exception) { // End with exception. this.State = -2; // -2 is end. this.ResultToReturn.SetException(exception); } } /// <summary> /// Configures the state machine with a heap-allocated replica. /// </summary> /// <param name="stateMachine">The heap-allocated replica.</param> [DebuggerHidden] void IAsyncStateMachine.SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine stateMachine) { // No core logic. } } Only Task and TaskCompletionSource are involved in this version. And MultiCallMethodAsync() can be simplified to: [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync_(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine = new MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Arg2 = arg2, Arg3 = arg3, ResultToReturn = new TaskCompletionSource<int>(), // -1: Begin // 0: 1st await is done // 1: 2nd await is done // ... // -2: End State = -1 }; (multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine as IAsyncStateMachine).MoveNext(); // Original code are in this method. return multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.ResultToReturn.Task; } Now the whole state machine becomes very clear - it is about callback: Original code are split into pieces by “await”s, and each piece is put into each “case” in the state machine. Here the 2 awaits split the code into 3 pieces, so there are 3 “case”s. The “piece”s are chained by callback, that is done by Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(callback), or currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(callback) in the simplified code. A previous “piece” will end with a Task (which is to be awaited), when the task is done, it will callback the next “piece”. The state machine’s state works with the “case”s to ensure the code “piece”s executes one after another. Callback Since it is about callback, the simplification  can go even further – the entire state machine can be completely purged. Now MultiCallMethodAsync() becomes: internal static Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { TaskCompletionSource<int> taskCompletionSource = new TaskCompletionSource<int>(); try { // Oringinal code begins. HelperMethods.Before(); MethodAsync(arg0, arg1).ContinueWith(await1 => { int resultOfAwait1 = await1.Result; HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); MethodAsync(arg2, arg3).ContinueWith(await2 => { int resultOfAwait2 = await2.Result; HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; // Oringinal code ends. taskCompletionSource.SetResult(resultToReturn); }); }); } catch (Exception exception) { taskCompletionSource.SetException(exception); } return taskCompletionSource.Task; } Please compare with the original async / await code: HelperMethods.Before(); int resultOfAwait1 = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); int resultOfAwait2 = await MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; return resultToReturn; Yeah that is the magic of C# async / await: Await is literally pretending to wait. In a await expression, a Task object will be return immediately so that caller is not blocked. The continuation code is compiled as that Task’s callback code. When that task is done, continuation code will execute. Please notice that many details inside the state machine are omitted for simplicity, like context caring, etc. If you want to have a detailed picture, please do check out the source code of AsyncTaskMethodBuilder and TaskAwaiter.

    Read the article

  • What's the difference between Scala and Red Hat's Ceylon language?

    - by John Bryant
    Red Hat's Ceylon language has some interesting improvements over Java: The overall vision: learn from Java's mistakes, keep the good, ditch the bad The focus on readability and ease of learning/use Static Typing (find errors at compile time, not run time) No “special” types, everything is an object Named and Optional parameters (C# 4.0) Nullable types (C# 2.0) No need for explicit getter/setters until you are ready for them (C# 3.0) Type inference via the "local" keyword (C# 3.0 "var") Sequences (arrays) and their accompanying syntactic sugariness (C# 3.0) Straight-forward implementation of higher-order functions I don't know Scala but have heard it offers some similar advantages over Java. How would Scala compare to Ceylon in this respect?

    Read the article

  • Understanding C# async / await (1) Compilation

    - by Dixin
    Now the async / await keywords are in C#. Just like the async and ! in F#, this new C# feature provides great convenience. There are many nice documents talking about how to use async / await in specific scenarios, like using async methods in ASP.NET 4.5 and in ASP.NET MVC 4, etc. In this article we will look at the real code working behind the syntax sugar. According to MSDN: The async modifier indicates that the method, lambda expression, or anonymous method that it modifies is asynchronous. Since lambda expression / anonymous method will be compiled to normal method, we will focus on normal async method. Preparation First of all, Some helper methods need to make up. internal class HelperMethods { internal static int Method(int arg0, int arg1) { // Do some IO. WebClient client = new WebClient(); Enumerable.Repeat("http://weblogs.asp.net/dixin", 10) .Select(client.DownloadString).ToArray(); int result = arg0 + arg1; return result; } internal static Task<int> MethodTask(int arg0, int arg1) { Task<int> task = new Task<int>(() => Method(arg0, arg1)); task.Start(); // Hot task (started task) should always be returned. return task; } internal static void Before() { } internal static void Continuation1(int arg) { } internal static void Continuation2(int arg) { } } Here Method() is a long running method doing some IO. Then MethodTask() wraps it into a Task and return that Task. Nothing special here. Await something in async method Since MethodTask() returns Task, let’s try to await it: internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> MethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { int result = await HelperMethods.MethodTask(arg0, arg1); return result; } } Because we used await in the method, async must be put on the method. Now we get the first async method. According to the naming convenience, it is named MethodAsync. Of course a async method can be awaited. So we have a CallMethodAsync() to call MethodAsync(): internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> CallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { int result = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); return result; } } After compilation, MethodAsync() and CallMethodAsync() becomes the same logic. This is the code of MethodAsyc(): internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { MethodAsyncStateMachine methodAsyncStateMachine = new MethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; methodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref methodAsyncStateMachine); return methodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } It just creates and starts a state machine, MethodAsyncStateMachine: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { public int State; public AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int> Builder; public int Arg0; public int Arg1; public int Result; private TaskAwaiter<int> awaitor; void IAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext() { try { if (this.State != 0) { this.awaitor = HelperMethods.MethodTask(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaitor.IsCompleted) { this.State = 0; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaitor, ref this); return; } } else { this.State = -1; } this.Result = this.awaitor.GetResult(); } catch (Exception exception) { this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetException(exception); return; } this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetResult(this.Result); } [DebuggerHidden] void IAsyncStateMachine.SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine param0) { this.Builder.SetStateMachine(param0); } } The generated code has been refactored, so it is readable and can be compiled. Several things can be observed here: The async modifier is gone, which shows, unlike other modifiers (e.g. static), there is no such IL/CLR level “async” stuff. It becomes a AsyncStateMachineAttribute. This is similar to the compilation of extension method. The generated state machine is very similar to the state machine of C# yield syntax sugar. The local variables (arg0, arg1, result) are compiled to fields of the state machine. The real code (await HelperMethods.MethodTask(arg0, arg1)) is compiled into MoveNext(): HelperMethods.MethodTask(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(). CallMethodAsync() will create and start its own state machine CallMethodAsyncStateMachine: internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(CallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> CallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1) { CallMethodAsyncStateMachine callMethodAsyncStateMachine = new CallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; callMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref callMethodAsyncStateMachine); return callMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } CallMethodAsyncStateMachine has the same logic as MethodAsyncStateMachine above. The detail of the state machine will be discussed soon. Now it is clear that: async /await is a C# language level syntax sugar. There is no difference to await a async method or a normal method. As long as a method returns Task, it is awaitable. State machine and continuation To demonstrate more details in the state machine, a more complex method is created: internal class AsyncMethods { internal static async Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { HelperMethods.Before(); int resultOfAwait1 = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); int resultOfAwait2 = await MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; return resultToReturn; } } In this method: There are multiple awaits. There are code before the awaits, and continuation code after each await After compilation, this multi-await method becomes the same as above single-await methods: internal class CompiledAsyncMethods { [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine = new MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Arg2 = arg2, Arg3 = arg3, Builder = AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int>.Create(), State = -1 }; multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Start(ref multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine); return multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.Builder.Task; } } It creates and starts one single state machine, MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { public int State; public AsyncTaskMethodBuilder<int> Builder; public int Arg0; public int Arg1; public int Arg2; public int Arg3; public int ResultOfAwait1; public int ResultOfAwait2; public int ResultToReturn; private TaskAwaiter<int> awaiter; void IAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext() { try { switch (this.State) { case -1: HelperMethods.Before(); this.awaiter = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg0, this.Arg1).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaiter.IsCompleted) { this.State = 0; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaiter, ref this); } break; case 0: this.ResultOfAwait1 = this.awaiter.GetResult(); HelperMethods.Continuation1(this.ResultOfAwait1); this.awaiter = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg2, this.Arg3).GetAwaiter(); if (!this.awaiter.IsCompleted) { this.State = 1; this.Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(ref this.awaiter, ref this); } break; case 1: this.ResultOfAwait2 = this.awaiter.GetResult(); HelperMethods.Continuation2(this.ResultOfAwait2); this.ResultToReturn = this.ResultOfAwait1 + this.ResultOfAwait2; this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetResult(this.ResultToReturn); break; } } catch (Exception exception) { this.State = -2; this.Builder.SetException(exception); } } [DebuggerHidden] void IAsyncStateMachine.SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine stateMachine) { this.Builder.SetStateMachine(stateMachine); } } Once again, the above state machine code is already refactored, but it still has a lot of things. More clean up can be done if we only keep the core logic, and the state machine can become very simple: [CompilerGenerated] [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Auto)] internal struct MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine : IAsyncStateMachine { // State: // -1: Begin // 0: 1st await is done // 1: 2nd await is done // ... // -2: End public int State; public TaskCompletionSource<int> ResultToReturn; // int resultToReturn ... public int Arg0; // int Arg0 public int Arg1; // int arg1 public int Arg2; // int arg2 public int Arg3; // int arg3 public int ResultOfAwait1; // int resultOfAwait1 ... public int ResultOfAwait2; // int resultOfAwait2 ... private Task<int> currentTaskToAwait; /// <summary> /// Moves the state machine to its next state. /// </summary> public void MoveNext() // IAsyncStateMachine member. { try { switch (this.State) { // Original code is split by "await"s into "case"s: // case -1: // HelperMethods.Before(); // MethodAsync(Arg0, arg1); // case 0: // int resultOfAwait1 = await ... // HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); // MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); // case 1: // int resultOfAwait2 = await ... // HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); // int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; // return resultToReturn; case -1: // -1 is begin. HelperMethods.Before(); // Code before 1st await. this.currentTaskToAwait = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg0, this.Arg1); // 1st task to await // When this.currentTaskToAwait is done, run this.MoveNext() and go to case 0. this.State = 0; MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine that1 = this; // Cannot use "this" in lambda so create a local variable. this.currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(_ => that1.MoveNext()); break; case 0: // Now 1st await is done. this.ResultOfAwait1 = this.currentTaskToAwait.Result; // Get 1st await's result. HelperMethods.Continuation1(this.ResultOfAwait1); // Code after 1st await and before 2nd await. this.currentTaskToAwait = AsyncMethods.MethodAsync(this.Arg2, this.Arg3); // 2nd task to await // When this.currentTaskToAwait is done, run this.MoveNext() and go to case 1. this.State = 1; MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine that2 = this; this.currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(_ => that2.MoveNext()); break; case 1: // Now 2nd await is done. this.ResultOfAwait2 = this.currentTaskToAwait.Result; // Get 2nd await's result. HelperMethods.Continuation2(this.ResultOfAwait2); // Code after 2nd await. int resultToReturn = this.ResultOfAwait1 + this.ResultOfAwait2; // Code after 2nd await. // End with resultToReturn. this.State = -2; // -2 is end. this.ResultToReturn.SetResult(resultToReturn); break; } } catch (Exception exception) { // End with exception. this.State = -2; // -2 is end. this.ResultToReturn.SetException(exception); } } /// <summary> /// Configures the state machine with a heap-allocated replica. /// </summary> /// <param name="stateMachine">The heap-allocated replica.</param> [DebuggerHidden] public void SetStateMachine(IAsyncStateMachine stateMachine) // IAsyncStateMachine member. { // No core logic. } } Only Task and TaskCompletionSource are involved in this version. And MultiCallMethodAsync() can be simplified to: [DebuggerStepThrough] [AsyncStateMachine(typeof(MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine))] // async internal static /*async*/ Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine = new MultiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine() { Arg0 = arg0, Arg1 = arg1, Arg2 = arg2, Arg3 = arg3, ResultToReturn = new TaskCompletionSource<int>(), // -1: Begin // 0: 1st await is done // 1: 2nd await is done // ... // -2: End State = -1 }; multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.MoveNext(); // Original code are moved into this method. return multiCallMethodAsyncStateMachine.ResultToReturn.Task; } Now the whole state machine becomes very clean - it is about callback: Original code are split into pieces by “await”s, and each piece is put into each “case” in the state machine. Here the 2 awaits split the code into 3 pieces, so there are 3 “case”s. The “piece”s are chained by callback, that is done by Builder.AwaitUnsafeOnCompleted(callback), or currentTaskToAwait.ContinueWith(callback) in the simplified code. A previous “piece” will end with a Task (which is to be awaited), when the task is done, it will callback the next “piece”. The state machine’s state works with the “case”s to ensure the code “piece”s executes one after another. Callback If we focus on the point of callback, the simplification  can go even further – the entire state machine can be completely purged, and we can just keep the code inside MoveNext(). Now MultiCallMethodAsync() becomes: internal static Task<int> MultiCallMethodAsync(int arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { TaskCompletionSource<int> taskCompletionSource = new TaskCompletionSource<int>(); try { // Oringinal code begins. HelperMethods.Before(); MethodAsync(arg0, arg1).ContinueWith(await1 => { int resultOfAwait1 = await1.Result; HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); MethodAsync(arg2, arg3).ContinueWith(await2 => { int resultOfAwait2 = await2.Result; HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; // Oringinal code ends. taskCompletionSource.SetResult(resultToReturn); }); }); } catch (Exception exception) { taskCompletionSource.SetException(exception); } return taskCompletionSource.Task; } Please compare with the original async / await code: HelperMethods.Before(); int resultOfAwait1 = await MethodAsync(arg0, arg1); HelperMethods.Continuation1(resultOfAwait1); int resultOfAwait2 = await MethodAsync(arg2, arg3); HelperMethods.Continuation2(resultOfAwait2); int resultToReturn = resultOfAwait1 + resultOfAwait2; return resultToReturn; Yeah that is the magic of C# async / await: Await is not to wait. In a await expression, a Task object will be return immediately so that execution is not blocked. The continuation code is compiled as that Task’s callback code. When that task is done, continuation code will execute. Please notice that many details inside the state machine are omitted for simplicity, like context caring, etc. If you want to have a detailed picture, please do check out the source code of AsyncTaskMethodBuilder and TaskAwaiter.

    Read the article

  • What are the pros and cons of Coffeescript?

    - by Philip
    Of course one big pro is the amount of syntactic sugar leading to shorter code in a lot of cases. On http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/ there are impressive examples. On the other hand I have doubts that these examples represent code of complex real world applications. In my code for instance I never add functions to bare objects but rather to their prototypes. Moreover the prototype feature is hidden from the user, suggesting classical OOP rather than idiomatic Javascript. The array comprehension example would look in my code probably like this: cubes = $.map(list, math.cube); // which is 8 characters less using jQuery...

    Read the article

  • Problem with my unicorn

    - by Johnny W
    I'd love to get some help with my unicorn, the damned thing just won't respond to my commands. It's a standard white unicorn with with a white mane. I've tried giving it hay, carrots and sugar cubes, but it's still refusing to do what I ask. I've read on other sites that I may need to reshoe her, but I'd rather not if I don't have to. Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • Python3 function annotations for type hinting versus Boo

    - by b0lt
    I've started on a medium-sized project in python, and I decided to use python 3 because I'm not using any large external libraries and py3k has some nice new syntactic sugar and more importantly function annotations. However, it seems like none of WingIDE, Pydev, or pycharm actually have any support for type hinting using function annotations. If I want something resembling static typing in python, is switching to boo a reasonable option?

    Read the article

  • JavaScript parser in JavaScript

    - by emk
    I need to add some lightweight syntactic sugar to JavaScript source code, and process it using a JavaScript-based build system. Are there any open source JavaScript parsers written in JavaScript? And are they reasonably fast when run on top of V8 or a similar high-performance JavaScript implementation? Thank you for any pointers you can provide!

    Read the article

  • Best way to handle Integer overflow in C#?

    - by byte
    Handling integer overflow is a common task, but what's the best way to handle it in C#? Is there some syntactic sugar to make it simpler than with other languages? Or is this really the best way? int x = foo(); int test = x * common; if(test / common != x) Console.WriteLine("oh noes!"); else Console.WriteLine("safe!");

    Read the article

  • Operator Overloading in C

    - by Leif Andersen
    In C++, I can change the operator on a specific class by doing something like this: MyClass::operator==/*Or some other operator such as =, >, etc.*/(Const MyClass rhs) { /* Do Stuff*/; } But with there being no classes (built in by default) in C. So, how could I do operator overloading for just general functions? For example, if I remember correctly, importing stdlib.h gives you the - operator, which is just syntactic sugar for (*strcut_name).struct_element. So how can I do this in C? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Python Macros: Use Cases?

    - by Rick Copeland
    If Python had a macro facility similar to Lisp/Scheme (something like MetaPython), how would you use it? If you are a Lisp/Scheme programmer, what sorts of things do you use macros for (other than things that have a clear syntactic parallel in Python such as a while loop)?

    Read the article

  • Disadvantage of unlifted type products?

    - by peaker
    In Haskell, lifted type products mean that there's a semantic difference between (a,b,c) and (a, (b, c)). If all pattern matches of all products was always irrefutable, then there would be no difference, and (a, b, c) could be syntactic sugar for (a, (b, c)). Why did Haskell choose to lift type products?

    Read the article

  • Should interfaces define properties?

    - by Otávio Décio
    Interfaces, as defined by MSDN "contain only the signatures of methods, delegates or events." However, since properties are no more than syntactic sugar for a get and set method, they are also allowed in interfaces. My question is - is there any situation where defining properties in an interface is appropriate or should we stick to the scenarios described by MSDN?

    Read the article

  • Scala: can't write setter without getter?

    - by IttayD
    This works: class ButtonCountObserver { private var cnt = 0 // private field def count = cnt // reader method def count_=(newCount: Int) = cnt = newCount // writer method // ... } val b = new ButtonCountObserver b.count = 0 But this doesn't class ButtonCountObserver { private var cnt = 0 // private field def count_=(newCount: Int) = cnt = newCount // writer method // ... } val b = new ButtonCountObserver b.count = 0 I get: error: value count is not a member of ButtonCountObserver Is it possible to create a setter (with the syntactic sugar) without a getter?

    Read the article

  • Why can operator-> be overloaded manually?

    - by FredOverflow
    Wouldn't it make sense if p->m was just syntactic sugar for (*p).m? Essentially, every operator-> that I have ever written could have been implemented as follows: Foo::Foo* operator->() { return &**this; } Is there any case where I would want p->m to mean something else than (*p).m?

    Read the article

  • Why is Matlab Stateflow 7.7 not throwing errors on undefined variables?

    - by Pyrolistical
    Previously in Matlab Stateflow 7.1 all variables and functions had to be included before they can be referred to in the state diagram or else it would throw an error when you tried to parse the diagram. But now in 7.7 it doesn't catch those kinds of errors. Its still compiling the diagram because it catches other syntactic errors. Am I missing an option somewhere? Can this be turned on?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  | Next Page >