I need state for both parent classes.

like this?

interface Parent1 {
    var state1: String

    fun manipulateState1() {
        state1 += "!"
    }
}

interface Parent2 {
    var state2: Int

    fun manipulateState2() {
        state2 += 1
    }
}

class Child : Parent1, Parent2 {
    override var state1 = "hello"
    override var state2 = 0

    fun manipulateState() {
        manipulateState1()
        manipulateState2()
    }
}

Problem is that that allows

Child

to access both states, there's no encapsulation.

oh in that case:

interface Parent1_ {
    var state1: String

    fun manipulateState1() {
        state1 += "!"
    }
}

interface Parent2_ {
    var state2: Int

    fun manipulateState2() {
        state2 += 1
    }
}

interface Parent1 : Parent1_ {
    @Deprecated("", level = HIDDEN)
    override var state1: String
}

interface Parent2 : Parent2_ {
    @Deprecated("", level = HIDDEN)
    override var state2: Int
}

class Child : Parent1, Parent2 {
    override var state1 = "hello"
    override var state2 = 0

    fun manipulateState() {
        manipulateState1()
        manipulateState2()
    }
}

Can

Child

not interact with

state1

and

state2

then? That's evil 😒imple_smile:

you'd have to do:

(this as Parent1_).state1

otherwise it's as if it doesn't exist, not even in the autocomplete

Might even be able to create classes for those delegate objects then!

sure, depends on your case

I'll play around a bit later today, thanks for the ideas!

or just this:

fun Parent1(state1: String): Parent1 = object : Parent1State { override var state1 = state1 }
fun Parent2(state2: Int): Parent2 = object : Parent2State { override var state2 = state2 }

class Child :
    Parent1 by Parent1(""),
    Parent2 by Parent2(0)
{
    fun manipulateState() {
        manipulateState1()
        manipulateState2()
    }
}

Yeah that's what I mean with my last comment.

exactly

I'm kind of stuck again, do you happen to have another trick for

protected

visibility?

interface User {
    fun foo()
}

class ConstUser(size: Int) : User {
    private val values = Array(size) { "$it" }

    override fun foo() = print(values)

    fun get(index: Int) = values[index]
}

class MyUser: User by ConstUser(2) {
    //I want ConstUser.get(index) to be protected-level visible here
}

@karelpeeters in this case you might do:

interface User {
    fun foo()
}

class ConstUser(size: Int) : User {
    private val values = Array(size) { "$it" }

    override fun foo() = print(values)

    operator fun get(index: Int) = values[index]
}

open class MyUser 
private constructor (
    private val user: ConstUser
): User by user {
    
    constructor() : this(ConstUser(2))
    
    protected operator fun get(index: Int) = user[index]
}

The annoying thing is that that requires a bunch of code duplication (there are lots of

MyUser

-type classes). I wonder if there's a way to get access to the delegate object instance, that might simplify things a bit.

There isn't

Hmm. Now I'm thinking generating code might be a better solution, but that then requires multiple modules and gradle fuckery. Dammit!

It won't get easier than this I'm afraid... What's the use case?

Faking multiple inheritance still. I spend some time cleaning up, if you want a full explanation: I'm writing an optimizing compiler inspired by LLVM. It works on an SSA form IR made of `Instruction`s, and those instructions have operands of type

Value

. Instructions themselves are also values, representing the result of their computation (this works and is elegant because of SSA, don't worry about it). Current code, commented with things I'm not happy about: https://gist.github.com/flaghacker/bfc6c09e50bacdbb236e79b8729ffe24

A few questions: * What exactly is User? * Why do you need Value to be User? * Why not make things immutable?

• User is "something that uses values", it only has that single function defined on it. This comes up in optimization: let's say someone uses

Add(Constant(1), Constant(2))

as an operand, that operand can be replaced with

Constant(3)

everywhere in the IR. In practice this would be a

replaceWith(Constant(3))

call on the add instruction I mentioned above, that then loops over the users and replaces itself with the new value. • I specifically don't want Value to be a User, see the comment above Value. That is just my current crappy solution to the fundamental multiple inheritance problem: things can be Values and Users at the same time. • Because the optimizations mutate stuff all over the place, eg. in the above example replacing

1 + 2

with

3

requires mutating of everything that uses

1 + 2

. Creating so many new objects is both bad for performance and difficult to do polymorphically (see Java's

Clonable

disaster).

what I mean is: why are you currently having Value be User?

Because eg. Instruction is both a Value and a User, and multiple direct parent classes aren't allowed. Having User be a Value would be just as good/bad of a solution here.

so you want Instruction to be a User

Yes, instruction is a User. Ideal implementation (User and ConstUser stayed the same): https://gist.github.com/flaghacker/79db37998107d2261fdb5a993da5c26c. I'll write up some usage examples, give me a minute.

ok, here's a way to do it

Hmm, the problem is that that leaks

operator

outside of

Add

, right? I guess it's not that bad.

it doesn't really

Oh I see I missed a couple of steps of indirection there 😒imple_smile: . I forgot about the

provideDelegate

thing, thanks! I used to cache the delegate instances but I cut out that part to have simpler code. I'll toy around a bit with this.

@karelpeeters yes but that's what I mean: you can do that, but creating an instance won't do anything, you only do "something" when you use it as a property delegate with

by

Right it won't do anything bad, that's true.