Alternatively, is there a way to force a re-evaluation of a single watch expression?
Say I have the following watch expression:
> Random.splitmix 123 '(Random.natIn 0 100)
When I run this, I might see a result like:
Now evaluating any watch expressions (lines starting with `>`)... Ctrl+C cancels.
5 | > Random.splitmix 123 '(Random.natIn 0 100)
⧩
56
Saving the file again will show the same result every time (it is cached).
I'm not sure if Random results should never be cached (maybe that's still good default behavior to save on computation time), but just wondering what the best workarounds are for this.
debug.clear-cache doesn't work either in this situation, since each time the RNG (Random.splitmix) starts over with the same seed.
Of course, we can manually change the random seed, but this also may not always be desired behavior (and a minor nitpick would be that it involves unnecessary keystrokes and creates additional caching - one cached result per seed, so you have to recall which seeds you already used).
You can clear the expression cache with debug.clear-cache in UCM.
That said, re-evaluating your expression is actually going to give the same result every time! The splitMix function is completely deterministic, so the result you get depends on the seed you provide and on nothing else.
So you could clear the cache here, but it’s not going to do anything.
To get a really random value, you need to use IO which is not allowed in watch expressions. You’d need to provide I/O to your program using run in UCM.
Since the watch expression would somehow need to maintain the random state, which is likely more trouble than it is worth, manually editing the random seed is likely the best compromise. Just re-evaluating will always start from the initial value produced from the given random seed.
Alternatively or conjunctively, evaluating a list of random values may be useful.
Related
Following code is part of contnrs unit of FreePascal
constructor TFPCustomHashTable.Create;
begin
CreateWith(196613,#RSHash);
end;
I am curious about 196613. I know it is hash table size. Is there any particular reason why this value is used?
In my test, constructor took about 3-4 ms to execute, which in my particular situation is not accepted. I suspect this is related to this constant value.
Update:
My question are:
Why 196613 is chosen? Why not other prime number?
Does it affect constructor call execution time?
196613 is one of the numbers being recommended for hash tables sizes (prime and far away from powers of two), for more info see e.g. https://planetmath.org/goodhashtableprimes.
It affects the constructor call execution time, yes. You can always construct TFPCustomHashTable using CreateWith and pass a size of your choice (any number is fine, as resizing algorithm checks for suitable sizes anyways) as well as your own hash function (or the pre-defined RSHash):
MyHashTable:=TFPCustomHashTable.CreateWith(193,#RSHash);
Keep in mind though, that resizing a hash table is an expensive operation as it requires to recalculate the hash function for all elements, so starting with a too small value is neither a good idea.
So say I have a variable, which holds a song number. -> song_no
Depending upon the value of this variable, I wish to call a function.
Say I have many different functions:
Fcn1
....
Fcn2
....
Fcn3
So for example,
If song_no = 1, call Fcn1
If song_no = 2, call Fcn2
and so forth...
How would I do this?
you should have compare function in the instruction set (the post suggests you are looking for assembly solution), the result for that is usually set a True bit or set a value in a register. But you need to check the instruction set for that.
the code should look something like:
load(song_no, $R1)
cmpeq($1,R1) //result is in R3
jmpe Fcn1 //jump if equal
cmpeq ($2,R1)
jmpe Fcn2
....
Hope this helps
I'm not well acquainted with the pic, but these sort of things are usually implemented as a jump table. In short, put pointers to the target routines in an array and call/jump to the entry indexed by your song_no. You just need to calculate the address into the array somehow, so it is very efficient. No compares necessary.
To elaborate on Jens' reply the traditional way of doing on 12/14-bit PICs is the same way you would look up constant data from ROM, except instead of returning an number with RETLW you jump forward to the desired routine with GOTO. The actual jump into the jump table is performed by adding the offset to the program counter.
Something along these lines:
movlw high(table)
movwf PCLATH
movf song_no,w
addlw table
btfsc STATUS,C
incf PCLATH
addwf PCL
table:
goto fcn1
goto fcn2
goto fcn3
.
.
.
Unfortunately there are some subtleties here.
The PIC16 only has an eight-bit accumulator while the address space to jump into is 11-bits. Therefore both a directly writable low-byte (PCL) as well as a latched high-byte PCLATH register is available. The value in the latch is applied as MSB once the jump is taken.
The jump table may cross a page, hence the manual carry into PCLATH. Omit the BTFSC/INCF if you know the table will always stay within a 256-instruction page.
The ADDWF instruction will already have been read and be pointing at table when PCL is to be added to. Therefore a 0 offset jumps to the first table entry.
Unlike the PIC18 each GOTO instruction fits in a single 14-bit instruction word and PCL addresses instructions not bytes, so the offset should not be multiplied by two.
All things considered you're probably better off searching for general PIC16 tutorials. Any of these will clearly explain how data/jump tables work, not to mention begin with the basics of how to handle the chip. Frankly it is a particularly convoluted architecture and I would advice staying with the "free" hi-tech C compiler unless you particularly enjoy logic puzzles or desperately need the performance.
I am attempting to get a random bearing, from 0 to 359.9.
SET bearing = FLOOR((RAND() * 359.9));
I may call the procedure that runs this request within the same while loop, immediately one after the next. Unfortunately, the randomization seems to be anything but unique. e.g.
Results
358.07
359.15
357.85
I understand how randomization works, and I know because of my quick calls to the same function, the ticks used to generate the random number are very close to one another.
In any other situation, I would wait a few milliseconds in between calls or reinit my Random object (such as in C#), which would greatly vary my randomness. However, I don't want to wait in this situation.
How can I increase randomness without waiting?
I understand how randomization works, and I know because of my quick calls to the same function, the ticks used to generate the random number are very close to one another.
That's not quite right. Where folks get into trouble is when they re-seed a random number generator repeatedly with the current time, and because they do it very quickly the time is the same and they end up re-seeding the RNG with the same seed. This results in the RNG spitting out the same sequence of numbers each time it is re-seeded.
Importantly, by "the same" I mean exactly the same. An RNG is either going to return an identical sequence or a completely different one. A "close" seed won't result in a "similar" sequence. You will either get an identical sequence or a totally different one.
The correct solution to this is not to stagger your re-seeds, but actually to stop re-seeding the RNG. You only need to seed an RNG once.
Anyways, that is neither here nor there. MySQL's RAND() function does not require explicit seeding. When you call RAND() without arguments the seeding is taken care of for you meaning you can call it repeatedly without issue. There's no time-based limitation with how often you can call it.
Actually your SQL looks fine as is. There's something missing from your post, in fact. Since you're calling FLOOR() the result you get should always be an integer. There's no way you'll get a fractional result from that assignment. You should see integral results like this:
187
274
89
345
That's what I got from running SELECT FLOOR(RAND() * 359.9) repeatedly.
Also, for what it's worth RAND() will never return 1.0. Its range is 0 ≤ RAND() < 1.0. You are safe using 360 vs. 359.9:
SET bearing = FLOOR(RAND() * 360);
When people talk about the use of "magic numbers" in computer programming, what do they mean?
Magic numbers are any number in your code that isn't immediately obvious to someone with very little knowledge.
For example, the following piece of code:
sz = sz + 729;
has a magic number in it and would be far better written as:
sz = sz + CAPACITY_INCREMENT;
Some extreme views state that you should never have any numbers in your code except -1, 0 and 1 but I prefer a somewhat less dogmatic view since I would instantly recognise 24, 1440, 86400, 3.1415, 2.71828 and 1.414 - it all depends on your knowledge.
However, even though I know there are 1440 minutes in a day, I would probably still use a MINS_PER_DAY identifier since it makes searching for them that much easier. Whose to say that the capacity increment mentioned above wouldn't also be 1440 and you end up changing the wrong value? This is especially true for the low numbers: the chance of dual use of 37197 is relatively low, the chance of using 5 for multiple things is pretty high.
Use of an identifier means that you wouldn't have to go through all your 700 source files and change 729 to 730 when the capacity increment changed. You could just change the one line:
#define CAPACITY_INCREMENT 729
to:
#define CAPACITY_INCREMENT 730
and recompile the lot.
Contrast this with magic constants which are the result of naive people thinking that just because they remove the actual numbers from their code, they can change:
x = x + 4;
to:
#define FOUR 4
x = x + FOUR;
That adds absolutely zero extra information to your code and is a total waste of time.
"magic numbers" are numbers that appear in statements like
if days == 365
Assuming you didn't know there were 365 days in a year, you'd find this statement meaningless. Thus, it's good practice to assign all "magic" numbers (numbers that have some kind of significance in your program) to a constant,
DAYS_IN_A_YEAR = 365
And from then on, compare to that instead. It's easier to read, and if the earth ever gets knocked out of alignment, and we gain an extra day... you can easily change it (other numbers might be more likely to change).
There's more than one meaning. The one given by most answers already (an arbitrary unnamed number) is a very common one, and the only thing I'll say about that is that some people go to the extreme of defining...
#define ZERO 0
#define ONE 1
If you do this, I will hunt you down and show no mercy.
Another kind of magic number, though, is used in file formats. It's just a value included as typically the first thing in the file which helps identify the file format, the version of the file format and/or the endian-ness of the particular file.
For example, you might have a magic number of 0x12345678. If you see that magic number, it's a fair guess you're seeing a file of the correct format. If you see, on the other hand, 0x78563412, it's a fair guess that you're seeing an endian-swapped version of the same file format.
The term "magic number" gets abused a bit, though, referring to almost anything that identifies a file format - including quite long ASCII strings in the header.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_format#Magic_number
Wikipedia is your friend (Magic Number article)
Most of the answers so far have described a magic number as a constant that isn't self describing. Being a little bit of an "old-school" programmer myself, back in the day we described magic numbers as being any constant that is being assigned some special purpose that influences the behaviour of the code. For example, the number 999999 or MAX_INT or something else completely arbitrary.
The big problem with magic numbers is that their purpose can easily be forgotten, or the value used in another perfectly reasonable context.
As a crude and terribly contrived example:
while (int i != 99999)
{
DoSomeCleverCalculationBasedOnTheValueOf(i);
if (escapeConditionReached)
{
i = 99999;
}
}
The fact that a constant is used or not named isn't really the issue. In the case of my awful example, the value influences behaviour, but what if we need to change the value of "i" while looping?
Clearly in the example above, you don't NEED a magic number to exit the loop. You could replace it with a break statement, and that is the real issue with magic numbers, that they are a lazy approach to coding, and without fail can always be replaced by something less prone to either failure, or to losing meaning over time.
Anything that doesn't have a readily apparent meaning to anyone but the application itself.
if (foo == 3) {
// do something
} else if (foo == 4) {
// delete all users
}
Magic numbers are special value of certain variables which causes the program to behave in an special manner.
For example, a communication library might take a Timeout parameter and it can define the magic number "-1" for indicating infinite timeout.
The term magic number is usually used to describe some numeric constant in code. The number appears without any further description and thus its meaning is esoteric.
The use of magic numbers can be avoided by using named constants.
Using numbers in calculations other than 0 or 1 that aren't defined by some identifier or variable (which not only makes the number easy to change in several places by changing it in one place, but also makes it clear to the reader what the number is for).
In simple and true words, a magic number is a three-digit number, whose sum of the squares of the first two digits is equal to the third one.
Ex-202,
as, 2*2 + 0*0 = 2*2.
Now, WAP in java to accept an integer and print whether is a magic number or not.
It may seem a bit banal, but there IS at least one real magic number in every programming language.
0
I argue that it is THE magic wand to rule them all in virtually every programmer's quiver of magic wands.
FALSE is inevitably 0
TRUE is not(FALSE), but not necessarily 1! Could be -1 (0xFFFF)
NULL is inevitably 0 (the pointer)
And most compilers allow it unless their typechecking is utterly rabid.
0 is the base index of array elements, except in languages that are so antiquated that the base index is '1'. One can then conveniently code for(i = 0; i < 32; i++), and expect that 'i' will start at the base (0), and increment to, and stop at 32-1... the 32nd member of an array, or whatever.
0 is the end of many programming language strings. The "stop here" value.
0 is likewise built into the X86 instructions to 'move strings efficiently'. Saves many microseconds.
0 is often used by programmers to indicate that "nothing went wrong" in a routine's execution. It is the "not-an-exception" code value. One can use it to indicate the lack of thrown exceptions.
Zero is the answer most often given by programmers to the amount of work it would take to do something completely trivial, like change the color of the active cell to purple instead of bright pink. "Zero, man, just like zero!"
0 is the count of bugs in a program that we aspire to achieve. 0 exceptions unaccounted for, 0 loops unterminated, 0 recursion pathways that cannot be actually taken. 0 is the asymptote that we're trying to achieve in programming labor, girlfriend (or boyfriend) "issues", lousy restaurant experiences and general idiosyncracies of one's car.
Yes, 0 is a magic number indeed. FAR more magic than any other value. Nothing ... ahem, comes close.
rlynch#datalyser.com
It goes without saying that using hard-coded, hex literal pointers is a disaster:
int *i = 0xDEADBEEF;
// god knows if that location is available
However, what exactly is the danger in using hex literals as variable values?
int i = 0xDEADBEEF;
// what can go wrong?
If these values are indeed "dangerous" due to their use in various debugging scenarios, then this means that even if I do not use these literals, any program that during runtime happens to stumble upon one of these values might crash.
Anyone care to explain the real dangers of using hex literals?
Edit: just to clarify, I am not referring to the general use of constants in source code. I am specifically talking about debug-scenario issues that might come up to the use of hex values, with the specific example of 0xDEADBEEF.
There's no more danger in using a hex literal than any other kind of literal.
If your debugging session ends up executing data as code without you intending it to, you're in a world of pain anyway.
Of course, there's the normal "magic value" vs "well-named constant" code smell/cleanliness issue, but that's not really the sort of danger I think you're talking about.
With few exceptions, nothing is "constant".
We prefer to call them "slow variables" -- their value changes so slowly that we don't mind recompiling to change them.
However, we don't want to have many instances of 0x07 all through an application or a test script, where each instance has a different meaning.
We want to put a label on each constant that makes it totally unambiguous what it means.
if( x == 7 )
What does "7" mean in the above statement? Is it the same thing as
d = y / 7;
Is that the same meaning of "7"?
Test Cases are a slightly different problem. We don't need extensive, careful management of each instance of a numeric literal. Instead, we need documentation.
We can -- to an extent -- explain where "7" comes from by including a tiny bit of a hint in the code.
assertEquals( 7, someFunction(3,4), "Expected 7, see paragraph 7 of use case 7" );
A "constant" should be stated -- and named -- exactly once.
A "result" in a unit test isn't the same thing as a constant, and requires a little care in explaining where it came from.
A hex literal is no different than a decimal literal like 1. Any special significance of a value is due to the context of a particular program.
I believe the concern raised in the IP address formatting question earlier today was not related to the use of hex literals in general, but the specific use of 0xDEADBEEF. At least, that's the way I read it.
There is a concern with using 0xDEADBEEF in particular, though in my opinion it is a small one. The problem is that many debuggers and runtime systems have already co-opted this particular value as a marker value to indicate unallocated heap, bad pointers on the stack, etc.
I don't recall off the top of my head just which debugging and runtime systems use this particular value, but I have seen it used this way several times over the years. If you are debugging in one of these environments, the existence of the 0xDEADBEEF constant in your code will be indistinguishable from the values in unallocated RAM or whatever, so at best you will not have as useful RAM dumps, and at worst you will get warnings from the debugger.
Anyhow, that's what I think the original commenter meant when he told you it was bad for "use in various debugging scenarios."
There's no reason why you shouldn't assign 0xdeadbeef to a variable.
But woe betide the programmer who tries to assign decimal 3735928559, or octal 33653337357, or worst of all: binary 11011110101011011011111011101111.
Big Endian or Little Endian?
One danger is when constants are assigned to an array or structure with different sized members; the endian-ness of the compiler or machine (including JVM vs CLR) will affect the ordering of the bytes.
This issue is true of non-constant values, too, of course.
Here's an, admittedly contrived, example. What is the value of buffer[0] after the last line?
const int TEST[] = { 0x01BADA55, 0xDEADBEEF };
char buffer[BUFSZ];
memcpy( buffer, (void*)TEST, sizeof(TEST));
I don't see any problem with using it as a value. Its just a number after all.
There's no danger in using a hard-coded hex value for a pointer (like your first example) in the right context. In particular, when doing very low-level hardware development, this is the way you access memory-mapped registers. (Though it's best to give them names with a #define, for example.) But at the application level you shouldn't ever need to do an assignment like that.
I use CAFEBABE
I haven't seen it used by any debuggers before.
int *i = 0xDEADBEEF;
// god knows if that location is available
int i = 0xDEADBEEF;
// what can go wrong?
The danger that I see is the same in both cases: you've created a flag value that has no immediate context. There's nothing about i in either case that will let me know 100, 1000 or 10000 lines that there is a potentially critical flag value associated with it. What you've planted is a landmine bug that, if I don't remember to check for it in every possible use, I could be faced with a terrible debugging problem. Every use of i will now have to look like this:
if (i != 0xDEADBEEF) { // Curse the original designer to oblivion
// Actual useful work goes here
}
Repeat the above for all of the 7000 instances where you need to use i in your code.
Now, why is the above worse than this?
if (isIProperlyInitialized()) { // Which could just be a boolean
// Actual useful work goes here
}
At a minimum, I can spot several critical issues:
Spelling: I'm a terrible typist. How easily will you spot 0xDAEDBEEF in a code review? Or 0xDEADBEFF? On the other hand, I know that my compile will barf immediately on isIProperlyInitialised() (insert the obligatory s vs. z debate here).
Exposure of meaning. Rather than trying to hide your flags in the code, you've intentionally created a method that the rest of the code can see.
Opportunities for coupling. It's entirely possible that a pointer or reference is connected to a loosely defined cache. An initialization check could be overloaded to check first if the value is in cache, then to try to bring it back into cache and, if all that fails, return false.
In short, it's just as easy to write the code you really need as it is to create a mysterious magic value. The code-maintainer of the future (who quite likely will be you) will thank you.