Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Funcref and script local functions

Expand Messages
  • Yakov Lerner
    ... To make myself more clear. I expect g:Xxx() to be callable from global scope of from another script in this example: --- scritp x.vim function! s:XXX()
    Message 1 of 12 , Jul 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On 7/3/06, Yakov Lerner <iler.ml@...> wrote:
      > On 6/30/06, Hari Krishna Dara <hari_vim@...> wrote:
      > > ... The Funcref obtained via function('s:T') can't be
      > > called from outside the script ... [unexpectedly]
      >
      > I agree, Hari. I'd expect funcref function('s:T') to be callable
      > outside of the script, too.

      To make myself more clear. I expect g:Xxx() to be callable
      from global scope of from another script in this example:

      " --- scritp x.vim
      function! s:XXX()
      echo "func XXX"
      endfunction

      let g:Xxx=function('s:XXX')

      Yakov
    • Eric Arnold
      ... The problem with this is that you can no longer have private object function refs. I d be interested to hear from Bram about what the intent was here. I
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On 7/3/06, Yakov Lerner <iler.ml@...> wrote:
        > On 7/3/06, Yakov Lerner <iler.ml@...> wrote:
        > > On 6/30/06, Hari Krishna Dara <hari_vim@...> wrote:
        > > > ... The Funcref obtained via function('s:T') can't be
        > > > called from outside the script ... [unexpectedly]
        > >
        > > I agree, Hari. I'd expect funcref function('s:T') to be callable
        > > outside of the script, too.
        >
        > To make myself more clear. I expect g:Xxx() to be callable
        > from global scope of from another script in this example:
        >
        > " --- scritp x.vim
        > function! s:XXX()
        > echo "func XXX"
        > endfunction
        >
        > let g:Xxx=function('s:XXX')
        >
        > Yakov
        >


        The problem with this is that you can no longer have private object
        function refs.

        I'd be interested to hear from Bram about what the intent was here.

        I think I can see some method in the maddness.

        1) let ref = function('s:XXX')

        This mains the standard scope rules for the func ref, and so it
        stays local even if the variable holding it is global. I can image
        situations where this could be useful.

        2) let ref = function('<SNR>66_XXX')

        This forces the function to be available globally because it is
        explicitely defined, and there is little chance of mistakes about
        that.

        3) function obj.funcref() dict

        Again, I think the intent for having the object function in the global
        scope is unknown (to me at least). I think it left global because you
        don't really need specific scoping for it, as when it is used, it
        *should* be used via the object name, which is scoped by the user.

        function s:obj.funcref() dict

        Hari, can you give an example of why function('s:T') should be
        globally scoped? I can't see a need for it, given all the
        possibilites for obtaining a ref.
      • Yakov Lerner
        ... Of course you can .: let s:Xxx=function( s:XXX ) script-private funcref let l:Xxx=function( s:XXX ) function-private funcref let
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 3, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          On 7/3/06, Eric Arnold <eric.p.arnold@...> wrote:
          > On 7/3/06, Yakov Lerner <iler.ml@...> wrote:
          > > On 7/3/06, Yakov Lerner <iler.ml@...> wrote:
          > > > On 6/30/06, Hari Krishna Dara <hari_vim@...> wrote:
          > > > > ... The Funcref obtained via function('s:T') can't be
          > > > > called from outside the script ... [unexpectedly]
          > > >
          > > > I agree, Hari. I'd expect funcref function('s:T') to be callable
          > > > outside of the script, too.
          > >
          > > To make myself more clear. I expect g:Xxx() to be callable
          > > from global scope of from another script in this example:
          > >
          > > " --- scritp x.vim
          > > function! s:XXX()
          > > echo "func XXX"
          > > endfunction
          > >
          > > let g:Xxx=function('s:XXX')
          > >
          > > Yakov
          > >
          >
          >
          > The problem with this is that you can no longer have private object
          > function refs.

          Of course you can .:

          let s:Xxx=function('s:XXX') " script-private funcref

          let l:Xxx=function('s:XXX') " function-private funcref

          let g:Xxx=function('s:XXX') " globally-accessible funcref

          Yakov
        • Eric Arnold
          ... No. These are variables where you have managed their scopes, but the underlying func ref *contained* would lose it s ability to maintain it s scope, i.e.
          Message 4 of 12 , Jul 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On 7/3/06, Yakov Lerner <iler.ml@...> wrote:
            > On 7/3/06, Eric Arnold <eric.p.arnold@...> wrote:
            > > On 7/3/06, Yakov Lerner <iler.ml@...> wrote:
            > > > On 7/3/06, Yakov Lerner <iler.ml@...> wrote:
            > > > > On 6/30/06, Hari Krishna Dara <hari_vim@...> wrote:
            > > > > > ... The Funcref obtained via function('s:T') can't be
            > > > > > called from outside the script ... [unexpectedly]
            > > > >
            > > > > I agree, Hari. I'd expect funcref function('s:T') to be callable
            > > > > outside of the script, too.
            > > >
            > > > To make myself more clear. I expect g:Xxx() to be callable
            > > > from global scope of from another script in this example:
            > > >
            > > > " --- scritp x.vim
            > > > function! s:XXX()
            > > > echo "func XXX"
            > > > endfunction
            > > >
            > > > let g:Xxx=function('s:XXX')
            > > >
            > > > Yakov
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > > The problem with this is that you can no longer have private object
            > > function refs.
            >
            > Of course you can .:


            No. These are variables where you have managed their scopes, but the
            underlying func ref *contained* would lose it's ability to maintain
            it's scope, i.e. .....


            > let s:Xxx=function('s:XXX') " script-private funcref


            You could do

            let g:Xxx = s:Xxx

            and now the private/script-local function s:XXX() can be called
            globally through g:Xxx . I'm not sure whether this would be a
            good or bad thing. It's sort of an ease-of-use vs strict scoping
            rules.

            Also, I think there might be a semantics problem here about the term
            "function reference". It seems to be concurrently the variable name,
            which can be called as a function directly, vs the underlying
            reference itself. I *think* that the func ref var actually does
            contain a reference, rather than *being* a reference, especially since
            you can pass it around, and maintain the original function name

            Anyway, I think there are, or should be two terms to talk about this
            kind of issue:

            - function reference

            - function reference variable



            > let l:Xxx=function('s:XXX') " function-private funcref
            >
            > let g:Xxx=function('s:XXX') " globally-accessible funcref
            >
            > Yakov
            >


            I'm still not sure that I understand the utility of this. If you want
            to create a global func ref variable which can call its content, which
            is a script-local function ref, then why not just make the function
            global in the first place? Are you worried about a global namespace
            conflict of the global function [ref] name? I guess the proposed
            change/request would allow creating an alias in the form of a global
            func ref var, bypass a global namespace conflict.

            Detouring away from the namespace question, here are two examples to consider:


            let s:obj = {}
            function s:obj.tstfunc() dict
            return 'here'
            endfunction
            echo s:obj.tstfunc()
            let g:Ref = s:obj
            " Yank and put this into the command line to test global scope:
            echo g:Ref.tstfunc()


            or


            function! s:tstfunc2()
            return 'here2'
            endfunction

            let s:ref = function( 's:tstfunc2' )
            echo s:ref()
            let g:Global_ref = s:ref
            " Yank and put this into the command line to test global scope, it should fail:
            echo g:Global_ref()


            So, my question is: Why should this be allowed? In the above test
            script, if you made function('s:XXX') global, then it is true in
            your examples, that you can create local function ref variables which
            hold that ref. However, in your example,

            > let g:Xxx=function('s:XXX') " globally-accessible funcref

            here you have violated the explicit scope set on the function s:XXX
            . Actually, I personally don't care which happens, since I use
            scoping in Vim only for namespace separation, not data hiding (where I
            think the violation might cause some problem that I can't think of
            :-).

            Lastly, we've got an inconsistency: dict functions created as
            numbered function refs which are always global, vs the above which
            maintains scope.
          • Hari Krishna Dara
            On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 at 6:35am, Eric Arnold wrote: [snip] numbered functions. [/snip] ... I think it is best to leave the discussion about numbered functions. It
            Message 5 of 12 , Jul 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 at 6:35am, Eric Arnold wrote:

              [snip]
              numbered functions.
              [/snip]
              >
              > I'm still not getting it, I think. Do you have a case where the
              > numbered function scheme will break down, or is it about the
              > callbacks, described below?

              I think it is best to leave the discussion about numbered functions. It
              hasn't got much value to the current discussion of whether the functions
              references to the script local functions should be callable outside the
              script in which the functions are defined.

              > > >
              > > >
              > > > On 6/29/06, Hari Krishna Dara <hari_vim@...> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > When Funcref's were introduced in Vim7, I expected them to work for
              > > > > script-local functions, across scripts. The documentation didn't say
              > > > > that, but it didn't say that it wouldn't either, and I thought that
              that
              > > > > is one of its biggest uses (other than the actual intended
              > > > > functionality, which is for implementing numbered functions). However,
              I
              >
              > I'm not sure that there is a problem. As with C code, if you have
              > the option of declaring a function global/local, public/private, etc.
              > I think Vim script is allowing these options.
              >
              > Are you saying that you want to override the private script
              > declarations by declaring a function reference to a low enough level
              > pointer that it goes under the scope checker?

              As Yakov Lerner already clarified, this should be allowed by Vim. As we
              already know, Vim's script-local scoping for functions is not realy
              intended to prevent external callers. In fact, Vim allows you to use
              these functions in all your mappings etc., and the calls then originate
              from outside outside the script context. This is probably why Vim allows
              a script local function be called in general, using the <SNR> syntax.
              All that I am saying is that this should be more formalized for
              Funcrefs (see below).

              >
              >
              > > > > found that the Funcref references for such functions can't actually be
              > > > > passed out to other scripts. This reduces the usefulness of this
              feature
              > > > > as we can't register private functions to receive callbacks from other
              > > > > scripts.
              >
              >
              > I think this is probably a request that it be more object oriented
              > than it is, ie. you really want object-scoped functions, not
              > script-scoped. You seem to want the script localized, so it can't be
              > access generally, but then be public for registering callbacks. This
              > seems like an object-scope problem.

              The script-local functions in Vim is more of a means to distinguish the
              public API from private. They are not really intended to prevent outside
              callers. We are not going to build a security system using Vim scripting
              after all.

              >
              > I think that the numbered functions are allowed globally, probably
              > because they are intended to be used as you describe, for callbacks
              > from other scripts, since they are only created for the 'dict'
              > "object" functions, as far as I can tell.
              >
              > > > >
              > > > > What is weird is that the the Funcref() actually behaves exactly like
              > > > > the function name itself. Say you have a function called s:T() and say
              > > > > the script id is 60. The Funcref obtained via function('s:T') can't be
              > > > > called from outside the script, but if the Funcref is obtained using
              > > > > function('<SNR>60_T'), then it will be fine. Also, a Funcref obtained
              >
              >
              > Both of these examples seem reasonable to me. If you declare a
              > function reference to a script-local object, s:T then you don't
              > want it being accessed outside the script. If you declare a
              > '<SNR>60_T' reference, then you probably wanted to use it outside
              > the script, otherwise you wouldn't have gone through the trouble of
              > finding the script id.

              You can't declare a function using the <SNR> prefix. When you use the s:
              or <SID> prefix, vim automatically changes it to the <SNR> form using
              the id of the script. When you want to register a callback, through an
              autocommand or a map, you don't need to go through the trouble (which
              actually is not a big trouble) of finding the script id, as Vim takes
              care of expand <SID> to the right value. This doesn't work the same,
              when you want to register the same function as a callback with another
              plugin, so you have to explicitly pass the function name with the <SNR>
              form (ie., <SNR>60_T not <SID>T). If Funcref's on s:T is same as
              <SNR>60_T, then this makes it simpler (and more formal) (again, see
              below).

              > > > > using these two methods will not be to the same object, though you
              would
              > > > > expect them to be. The below echoes 0:
              >
              >
              > How did you test what the object was? Actually, I wouldn't expect it
              > to be the same object in any case, since each reference to it should
              > crease a new instance. They both might refer to the same function
              > definition stored internally, but I don't know.

              As my code sample below shows, the "is" operator on two separate
              references of "s:T" gives you "true", but if one reference is to the
              <SNR> form, you get "false". This is counter-intuitive, as you
              referencing the same exact function.

              >
              > Also, we aren't talking about true "objects", just to be clear, but an
              > enhancment that allows object-oriented-like functional access. This
              > limits the expectations we can have.

              This limitation is not applicable to my argument.

              [snip]

              > >
              > > No, that is not what I was saying. If there is a way to declare
              > > variables without initializing them, I would have said something like:
              > >
              > > Funcref var
              > >
              > > However, the equivalent of the above is to say:
              > >
              > > let var = function('somefunc')
              > >
              > > The alternative is of course to just initialize the variable as and when
              > > it is required, but I generally don't like this approach, as it is not
              > > clear which variables are being used.
              > >
              >
              > I want to have it auto-initialize whether in a "let" statement, or an
              > implicit setting via a function call argument. And I'd like to be
              > able to test a value that hasn't been explicitly initialized, i.e.
              >
              > if var1[1].elem1 > 0
              > ...
              >
              > where nothing about "var1" has been defined, but is used such that
              > automatic NULL elements would have to be created manually in any case.
              > If I really want it to fail if [1] or .elem1 are not
              > defined, I can use 'exists()' or 'has()'. As I said elsewhere, it
              > should be an option, for backward compatibility.

              I am not talking about "initialization" here, just declaration.

              --
              Thanks,
              Hari

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com
            • Bram Moolenaar
              ... The whole purpose of script-local functions is that they will only be used locally in the script. Thus they can t be called from outside the script
              Message 6 of 12 , Jul 8, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hari Krishna Dara wrote:

                > When Funcref's were introduced in Vim7, I expected them to work for
                > script-local functions, across scripts. The documentation didn't say
                > that, but it didn't say that it wouldn't either, and I thought that that
                > is one of its biggest uses (other than the actual intended
                > functionality, which is for implementing numbered functions). However, I
                > found that the Funcref references for such functions can't actually be
                > passed out to other scripts. This reduces the usefulness of this feature
                > as we can't register private functions to receive callbacks from other
                > scripts.

                The whole purpose of script-local functions is that they will only be
                used locally in the script. Thus they can't be called from outside the
                script (without the trick to obtain the script nr). Also not when using
                a Funcref.

                > What is weird is that the the Funcref() actually behaves exactly like
                > the function name itself.

                Yes, that basically sums it up.

                > There are other aspects of the new features that are very
                > counter-intuitive to me, whether I think in terms of Python or generic
                > "objects" in any language. The one which gets me the most is the
                > implicit typing of variables based on the initializer. For basic types
                > prior to Vim7 (integer and string), you could easily switch the value of
                > the variable from integer to string or vice versa, and the type() of the
                > variable would change, suggesting that it behaves like "duck typing" (as
                > per (wikipedia). But this observation can't be extended to the newer
                > object types, as the below will fail:
                >
                > let a = {}
                > let a = []
                >
                > If the type of value determines the type of the variable, and if we are
                > merely dealing with references (assigning references instead of copying
                > objects), then why should the second statement above generate the below
                > error?
                >
                > E706: Variable type mismatch for: a
                >
                > Is there a standard for this type of language behavior? I didn't find
                > anything at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamically_typed

                I don't know if there is a standard and generally I don't care. There
                is nothing against inventing something new. The main point is that it's
                very easy to make mistakes with using the wrong type for a variable.
                Using declarations is the normal way to have the compiler or interpreter
                check the type. But declarations are annoying and certainly don't fit
                with Vim 6.x script. Therefore I used the "sticky types" mechanism: the
                first time a variable is assigned a value that's the type it has. Very
                simple and efficient. You just need to remember that variables are not
                dynamically typed. Except for int/string, for backwards compatibility.

                --
                Back off man, I'm a scientist.
                -- Peter, Ghostbusters

                /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
                /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
                \\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
                \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
              • Hari Krishna Dara
                ... I often provide public functions that are useful for other plugins to interface, so I don t like mixing them up with the functions that are not really
                Message 7 of 12 , Jul 8, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 at 3:10pm, Bram Moolenaar wrote:

                  >
                  > Hari Krishna Dara wrote:
                  >
                  > > When Funcref's were introduced in Vim7, I expected them to work for
                  > > script-local functions, across scripts. The documentation didn't say
                  > > that, but it didn't say that it wouldn't either, and I thought that that
                  > > is one of its biggest uses (other than the actual intended
                  > > functionality, which is for implementing numbered functions). However, I
                  > > found that the Funcref references for such functions can't actually be
                  > > passed out to other scripts. This reduces the usefulness of this feature
                  > > as we can't register private functions to receive callbacks from other
                  > > scripts.
                  >
                  > The whole purpose of script-local functions is that they will only be
                  > used locally in the script. Thus they can't be called from outside the
                  > script (without the trick to obtain the script nr). Also not when using
                  > a Funcref.

                  I often provide public functions that are useful for other plugins to
                  interface, so I don't like mixing them up with the functions that are
                  not really meant for getting called directly. Can the support for
                  calling the script local functions from outside using SNR form be ever
                  dropped? If not, I don't mind using this form to keep my plugin
                  interface clean, as a workaround (I actually use this trick all the
                  time, but always wondered if this is a feature or a bug, and in case it
                  is a bug, if it ever will be fixed).

                  --
                  Thanks,
                  Hari

                  >
                  > > What is weird is that the the Funcref() actually behaves exactly like
                  > > the function name itself.
                  >
                  > Yes, that basically sums it up.
                  >
                  > > There are other aspects of the new features that are very
                  > > counter-intuitive to me, whether I think in terms of Python or generic
                  > > "objects" in any language. The one which gets me the most is the
                  > > implicit typing of variables based on the initializer. For basic types
                  > > prior to Vim7 (integer and string), you could easily switch the value of
                  > > the variable from integer to string or vice versa, and the type() of the
                  > > variable would change, suggesting that it behaves like "duck typing" (as
                  > > per (wikipedia). But this observation can't be extended to the newer
                  > > object types, as the below will fail:
                  > >
                  > > let a = {}
                  > > let a = []
                  > >
                  > > If the type of value determines the type of the variable, and if we are
                  > > merely dealing with references (assigning references instead of copying
                  > > objects), then why should the second statement above generate the below
                  > > error?
                  > >
                  > > E706: Variable type mismatch for: a
                  > >
                  > > Is there a standard for this type of language behavior? I didn't find
                  > > anything at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamically_typed
                  >
                  > I don't know if there is a standard and generally I don't care. There
                  > is nothing against inventing something new. The main point is that it's
                  > very easy to make mistakes with using the wrong type for a variable.
                  > Using declarations is the normal way to have the compiler or interpreter
                  > check the type. But declarations are annoying and certainly don't fit
                  > with Vim 6.x script. Therefore I used the "sticky types" mechanism: the
                  > first time a variable is assigned a value that's the type it has. Very
                  > simple and efficient. You just need to remember that variables are not
                  > dynamically typed. Except for int/string, for backwards compatibility.
                  >
                  >

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.