Open Type Arrays?

[Stefan Glienke 1901]

2 hours ago, Kas Ob. said:

wonder if there is trick(s) to make this works 

No - Anything is an untyped var parameter - if you put such a signature into an interface with methodinfo on you even get a funky compiler error E2134 Type '<void>' has no type info

[Remy Lebeau 1256]

7 hours ago, Kas Ob. said:

I wonder if there is trick(s) to make this works 

Not the way you have shown, no.  All type info is lost with an untyped var parameter, so you HAVE to specify a type somehow.  A Generic is the most direct way to specify a type in a, well, generic manner, eg:

type
  TRecSI = record
    FInteger: Integer;
    FString: string;
    constructor Create(const s: string; i: Integer);
  end;

  THelper = class
    class procedure DoSomething<T>(var Anything: T);
  end;

constructor TRecSI.Create(const s: string; i: Integer);
begin
  FInteger := i;
  FString := s;
end;

class procedure THelper.DoSomething<T>(var Anything: T);
begin
  case GetTypeKind(T) of
    tkInteger:
      Writeln(PInteger(@Anything)^);
    ///
  end;
end;

var
  A: Integer;
  B: string;
  C: TArray<Byte>;
  D: TArray<Integer>;
  E: TArray<string>;
  F: TRecSI;

begin
  THelper.DoSomething(A);
  THelper.DoSomething(B);
  THelper.DoSomething(C);
  THelper.DoSomething(D);
  THelper.DoSomething(E);
  
  F := TRecSI.Create('Hello', 1234);
  DoSomething(F);

  Readln;
end.

Otherwise, you could use TValue instead, eg:

type
  TRecSI = record
    FInteger: Integer;
    FString: string;
    constructor Create(const s: string; i: Integer);
  end;

constructor TRecSI.Create(const s: string; i: Integer);
begin
  FInteger := i;
  FString := s;
end;

procedure DoSomething(const Anything: TValue);
begin
  case Anything.Kind of
    tkInteger:
      Writeln(Anything.AsInteger { or: Anything.AsType<Integer> } );
    ///
  end;
end;

var
  A: Integer;
  B: string;
  C: TArray<Byte>;
  D: TArray<Integer>;
  E: TArray<string>;

begin
  // TValue supports implicit conversions for some fundamental types...
  DoSomething(A { or: TValue.From(A) });
  DoSomething(B { or: TValue.From(B) });

  // but no implicit conversions for array types...
  DoSomething(TValue.From(C));
  DoSomething(TValue.From(D));
  DoSomething(TValue.From(E));
  
  // or records...
  DoSomething(TValue.From(TRecSI.Create('Hello', 1234)));

  Readln;
end.

 

[Stefan Glienke 1901]

17 minutes ago, Remy Lebeau said:

TValue supports implicit conversions for some fundamental types but no implicit conversions for array types or records...

If we just could write

class operator Implicit<T>(const value: T): TValue;

... oh wait... we can!

 

type
  TValueHelper = record helper for TValue
    class function &&op_Implicit<T>(const value: T): TValue; static;
  end;

class function TValueHelper.&&op_Implicit<T>(const value: T): TValue;
begin
  TValue.Make(@value, System.TypeInfo(T), Result);
end;

 

[Mahdi Safsafi 225]

1 hour ago, Stefan Glienke said:

If we just could write

class operator Implicit<T>(const value: T): TValue;

... oh wait... we can!

 

type
  TValueHelper = record helper for TValue
    class function &&op_Implicit<T>(const value: T): TValue; static;
  end;

class function TValueHelper.&&op_Implicit<T>(const value: T): TValue;
begin
  TValue.Make(@value, System.TypeInfo(T), Result);
end;

 

Very excellent Stefan ! 

Just noticed that the new operand overrides the original one for integer-literal :

DoSomething(1);      // calls yours operand.
DoSomething(a);      // calls default operand. a=integer.
DoSomething('test'); // calls default operand.
DoSomething(str);    // calls default operand. str=string.

EDIT:

I guess the answer is here:

class operator TValue.Implicit(Value: Integer): TValue;

 

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Mahdi Safsafi

[Stefan Glienke 1901]

54 minutes ago, Mahdi Safsafi said:

Just noticed that the new operand overrides the original one for integer-literal

Yes, because 1 is not Integer

[aehimself 388]

21 hours ago, PeterPanettone said:

However, your employer has to pay for the time you need to write overloaded code. (Though I assume you're a fast writer).

These overloaded methods are like 4 lines. I really would like to have an employer who pays me double for 4 extra lines per feature request.

In a real world scenario, overloaded methods usually point from one to the other (or call the "real" one with proper adjustments) so we can argue that this was for demonstration only, but in real life - multiple overloaded methods will not consume even 10 minutes of your time if done smartly.

[Fr0sT.Brutal 897]

United types are a headache in JS/TS... you must always check whether that 'foo' is number, or string, or maybe string object, or undefined, or null... Overloaded methods rule. Compiler takes care of correct branching so you can't forget some type check and ruin your app.

One addition I'd add to generics is "is" operator for simple types. Nevertheless, "de-generising" a type is a bad practice that should be avoided so I doubt is would be added to language

Edited July 24, 2020 by Fr0sT.Brutal