There is a function in the r mlr package that lists all the methods it supports for a given learner, which I have used once but cannot find again. I do recall that xgboost's xgb.create.feature was definitely on the included list, but I cannot find any docs on how to use it from within mlr. Does anyone know how to do this? (And if anyone can remember the name of the mlr search function for implemented learner methods that would also be much appreciated.)
xgb.create.features is a function from xgboost not mlr.
If you want to use the function, you can access the learner model directly and call the function.
library(mlr)
library(xgboost)
mod = train(makeLearner("classif.xgboost"), iris.task)
iris.dc = data.matrix(getTaskData(iris.task, target.extra = TRUE)$data)
xgboost::xgb.create.features(mod$learner.model, iris.dc)
Not all methods of learners are directly supported from mlr side.
Related
I have been implementing a calculator in Action Script 3 and I found Math classes for sin, cos, tan, asin, acos, atan but I do not find any way to implement sinh, cosh, tanh, asinh, acosh, atanh in Action Script 3.
Do I need to write the code on the basis of raw formulas or is there any AS libraries available which do the work. I am not very good in math so do not want to write it using formulas. Also using formula may result in imprecise result.
Please suggest a way to figure it out for both the cases.
What formulas did you intend to use? With the means at hand you can easily define
cosh(x) = 0.5*(exp(x)+exp(-x))
sinh(x) = 0.5*(exp(x)-exp(-x))
tanh(x) = 1-2/(1+exp(2*x)) = (exp(2*x)-1)/(exp(2*x)+1)
acosh(x) = log(x+sqrt(x*x-1))
asinh(x) = log(x+sqrt(x*x+1))
atanh(x) = 0.5*log(2/(1-x)-1) = 0.5*(log(1+x)-log(1-x))
In perl, sometimes it is necessary to specify the function name in the use statement.
For example:
use Data::DPath ('dpath');
will work but
use Data::DPath;
won't.
Other modules don't need the function names specified, for example:
use WWW::Mechanize;
Why?
Each module chooses what functions it exports by default. Some choose to export no functions by default at all, you have to ask for them. There's a few good reasons to do this, and one bad one.
If you're a class like WWW::Mechanize, then you don't need to export any functions. Everything is a class or object method. my $mech = WWW::Mechanize->new.
If you're a pragma like strict then there are no functions nor methods, it does its work simply by being loaded.
Some modules export waaay too many functions by default. An example is Test::Deep which exports...
all any array array_each arrayelementsonly arraylength arraylengthonly bag blessed bool cmp_bag cmp_deeply cmp_methods cmp_set code eq_deeply hash
hash_each hashkeys hashkeysonly ignore Isa isa listmethods methods noclass
none noneof num obj_isa re reftype regexpmatches regexponly regexpref
regexprefonly scalarrefonly scalref set shallow str subbagof subhashof
subsetof superbagof superhashof supersetof useclass
The problem comes when another module tries to export the same functions, or if you write a function with the same name. Then they clash and you get mysterious warnings.
$ cat ~/tmp/test.plx
use Test::Deep;
use List::Util qw(all);
$ perl -w ~/tmp/test.plx
Subroutine main::all redefined at /Users/schwern/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.20.2/lib/5.20.2/Exporter.pm line 66.
at /Users/schwern/tmp/test.plx line 2.
Prototype mismatch: sub main::all: none vs (&#) at /Users/schwern/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.20.2/lib/5.20.2/Exporter.pm line 66.
at /Users/schwern/tmp/test.plx line 2.
For this reason, exporting lots of functions is discouraged. For example, the Exporter documentation advises...
Do not export method names!
Do not export anything else by default without a good reason!
Exports pollute the namespace of the module user. If you must export try to use #EXPORT_OK in preference to #EXPORT and avoid short or common symbol names to reduce the risk of name clashes.
Unfortunately, some modules take this too far. Data::DPath is a good example. It has a really clear main function, dpath(), which it should export by default. Otherwise it's basically useless.
You can always turn off exporting with use Some::Module ();.
The reason is that some modules simply contain functions in them and they may or may not have chosen to export them by default, and that means they may need to be explicitly imported by the script to access directly or use a fully qualified name to access them. For example:
# in some script
use SomeModule;
# ...
SomeModule::some_function(...);
or
use SomeModule ('some_function');
# ...
some_function(...);
This can be the case if the module was not intended to be used in an object-oriented way, i.e. where no classes have been defined and lines such as my $obj = SomeModule->new() wouldn't work.
If the module has defined content in the EXPORT_OK array, it means that the client code will only get access to it if it "asks for it", rather than "automatically" when it's actually present in the EXPORT array.
Some modules automatically export their content by means of the #EXPORT array. This question and the Exporter docs have more detail on this.
Without you actually posting an MCVE, it's difficult to know what you've done in your Funcs.pm module that may be allowing you to import everything without using EXPORT and EXPORT_OK arrays. Perhaps you did not include the package Funcs; line in your module, as #JonathanLeffler suggested in the comments. Perhaps you did something else. Perl is one of those languages where people pride themselves in the TMTOWTDI mantra, often to a detrimental/counter-productive level, IMHO.
The 2nd example you presented is very different and fairly straightforward. When you have something like:
use WWW::Mechanize;
my $mech = new WWW::Mechanize;
$mech->get("http://www.google.com");
you're simply instantiating an object of type WWW::Mechanize and calling an instance method, called get, on it. There's no need to import an object's methods because the methods are part of the object itself. Modules looking to have an OOP approach are not meant to export anything. They're different situations.
I'm trying to build a program in Pascal to differentiate mathematical functions. It's working very well (calculate min/max, symmetry, drawing the graph, etc.) but I have to put the functions (i.e. x^3+3x+2) into the source code like this:
function f(x : real): real;
begin
f := x * x * x + 3 * x + 2;
end;
Though, I want the user to define the function to differentiate. Obviosly the readln function does not help.
Somebody told me the only solution would be a specific parser. But it's very difficult, and I don't know how to do it.
My idea would be to extract the function into a *.txt file for example so that it could be changed easily. Is that possible?
Can somebody show me a parser which could solve this problem or have anybody some other great solution?
I would really appreciate your help!
Thanks in advance ;)
Free Pascal ships with the symbolic package, which has both a parser and evaluator for mathematical expressions. You can probably use this as a starting point. See the documentation for usage.
There are also a number of parsers/evalutaors on SWAG:
EQUATE.PAS (short, clean evaluator)
PARSMATH.PAS (very short example code)
Math Parsing Unit (undocumented, kind of messy)
Math Evaluations (Somewhat cryptic.)
Nice Expression Parser (Small, seems well done.)
Expression Evaluator (Messier, includes trig functions.)
Math Expression Evaluator (not well documented)
Equation Parser (converts equations to arrays of coefficients)
Text Formula Parser (fairly complete parser/evaluator unit)
I bolded the ones I thought were the most useful. I don't think any of them are as complete as the symbolic package in my other answer, but they might be worth reading if you need help.
(All of this is fairly old code. Unless otherwise stated, the rule with SWAG is to treat this stuff as having a new-style BSD license)
EDIT
I want to group together related functions to show that they are related.
If I have local:f1() and local:f2() then I could just change their names to local:menu-f1() and local:menu-f2() but is there a mechanism in the XQuery language to group related functions?
OP
I am very excited to discover that XQuery functions can be declared in a namespace other than local:. Where can I find info about how this works?
Having always declared functions in this way;
declare function local:foo() {
3+4
};
.. and used them in this way;
local:foo()
.. I discover that they can be declared like this;
declare namespace baz = "fred:bloggs";
declare function baz:foo() {
3+4
};
.. and used like this;
baz:foo()
But I can only find reference-like information about declare namespace and declare function separately, not tutorial-like information about how XQuery function namespaces work in general.
Is there a newbie guide to XQuery function namespaces?
I'm using a Saxon processor - XQuery 1.0.
What you are probably using are normal XQuery namespaces - what you probably are looking for are modules. You can put a bunch of functions in its own module namespace like this:
module namespace foo = "http://www.myurl.com/foo";
declare function foo:bar($args as item()*) as item()* {
() (: do something cool :)
};
Afterwards you can import the module in you main query and call the function:
import module namespace foo = "http://www.myurl.com/foo";
foo:bar(<my-element/>)
The problem is, that it is not standardized, how the processor has to find the query. And I don't know how Saxon implements the module resolving mechanism (you should look into the documentation and/or write to the Saxon mailing list).
But most XQuery processors look at the path given by an "at" clause relative from the location of the query. So to have something that should work on most implementations: For example you could store the module in a file named foo.xq and place it into the same directory than your main query and then for the module import you would write:
import module namespace foo = "http://www.myurl.com/foo" at "foo.xq";
which gives a hint to the XQuery engine where it should look for the module.
You can find some (not a lot at the moment) documentation about this stuff at http://www.xquery.me/ - hope this helps.
EDIT
Ok I see, you only want to group your functions. To do that you already figured out everything you need to know. But I still want to emphasize that splitting your query up into modules would probably be the better solution for your use-case (it's just somehow nicer, since your have more modularity and in the upcoming XQuery 3.0 recommendation you will even have the possibility to put stuff like private functions and variables in there). But if your query does not get big, your solution is of course also ok.
You can think about XML namespaces the same way you would think about namespaces in C++. In XQuery, functions, elements, collections, variables, attributes etc can be in an own namespace (again - like in C++). There are some implicitely defined namespaces like xs (the XML Schema namespace where you can find the data types like boolean, integer etc), local (a namespace where you can put in functions so that you are not forced to define your own namespace in a main query), fn (where all functions from the "XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 functions and operators" recommendation are defined). But the prefix of this function is only an alias - you can use whatever you want.
So let's say you have the following code in the prolog of your query:
declare namespace blubb = "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";
blubb:integer would be exactly the same type than xs:integer - the same holds for functions:
declare namespace l = "http://www.w3.org/2005/xquery-local-functions";
With declaring that you can access every function in the local namespace with the "l" prefix (so l:bar() if local:bar() exists).
If you do not type a prefix, XQuery assumes that this function is in the "fn" namespace. This is why bot
fn:concat("Hello ", "World!")
and
concat("Hello ", "World!")
are equivalent. You can change this behavior. You could include this line into the prolog:
declare default function namespace "http://www.w3.org/2005/xquery-local-functions";
which would tell the XQuery processor that you do not want to prefix local functions (so bar() would be equivalent to local:bar()).
I am not sure if I answered your questions or at least was able to bring in some clarity. I do not know about a tutorial for that (since in the beginning it is somehow confusing but in the end you realize that there is not a lot to say about since the mechanisms are much simpler than they look in the first place). The document where I always look up stuff is the recommendation at http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery/
If this does not help you please try to qualify and I can try again with an explanation..
Is there any way to define an Erlang function from within the Erlang shell instead of from an erl file (aka a module)?
Yes but it is painful. Below is a "lambda function declaration" (aka fun in Erlang terms).
1> F=fun(X) -> X+2 end.
%%⇒ #Fun <erl_eval.6.13229925>
Have a look at this post. You can even enter a module's worth of declaration if you ever needed. In other words, yes you can declare functions.
One answer is that the shell only evaluates expressions and function definitions are not expressions, they are forms. In an erl file you define forms not expressions.
All functions exist within modules, and apart from function definitions a module consists of attributes, the more important being the modules name and which functions are exported from it. Only exported functions can be called from other modules. This means that a module must be defined before you can define the functions.
Modules are the unit of compilation in erlang. They are also the basic unit for code handling, i.e. it is whole modules which are loaded into, updated, or deleted from the system. In this respect defining functions separately one-by-one does not fit into the scheme of things.
Also, from a purely practical point of view, compiling a module is so fast that there is very little gain in being able to define functions in the shell.
This depends on what you actually need to do.
There are functions that one could consider as 'throwaways', that is, are defined once to perform a test with, and then you move on. In such cases, the fun syntax is used. Although a little cumbersome, this can be used to express things quickly and effectively. For instance:
1> Sum = fun(X, Y) -> X + Y end.
#Fun<erl_eval.12.128620087>
2> Sum(1, 2).
3
defines an anonymous fun that is bound to the variable (or label) Sum. Meanwhile, the following defines a named fun, called F, that is used to create a new process whose PID (<0.80.0>) is bound to Pid. Note that F is called in a tail recursive fashion in the second clause of receive, enabling the process to loop until the message stop is sent to it.
3> Pid = spawn(fun F() -> receive stop -> io:format("Stopped~n"); Msg -> io:format("Got: ~p~n", [Msg]), F() end end).
<0.80.0>
4> Pid ! hello.
hello
Got: hello
5> Pid ! stop.
Stopped
stop
6>
However you might need to define certain utility functions that you intend to use over and over again in the Erlang shell. In this case, I would suggest using the user_default.erl file together with .erlang to automatically load these custom utility functions into the Erlang shell as soon as this is launched. For instance, you could write a function that compiles all the Erlang files in living in the current directory.
I have written a small guide on how to do this on this GitHub link. You might find it helpful and instructive.
If you want to define a function on the shell to use it as macro (because it encapsulates some functionality that you need frequently), have a look at
https://erldocs.com/current/stdlib/shell_default.html