Apply function repeatedly a specific number of times - function

If you have a function, is there an easy or built-in way to apply it n times, or until the result is something specific. So, for example, if you want to apply the sqrt function 4 times, with the effect of:
julia> sqrt(sqrt(sqrt(sqrt(11231))))
1.791229164345863
you could type something like:
repeatf(sqrt, 11231, 4)

I dont know of such a function but you could use this
julia> repeatf(f, x, n) = n > 1 ? f(repeatf(f, x, n-1)) : f(x)
julia> repeatf(sqrt, 11321, 4)
106.40018796975878
also, even comfier
repeatf(n, f, x...) = n > 1 ? f(repeatf(n-1, f, x...)...) : f(x...)
for functions with more than one arguement

I'm a fan of defining that ^ operator to work on Functions and Ints
julia> (^)(f::Function, i::Int) = i==1 ? f : x->(f^(i-1))(f(x))
^ (generic function with 1 method)
julia> (sqrt^1)(2)
1.4142135623730951
julia> (sqrt^2)(2)
1.189207115002721
julia> (sqrt^3)(2)
1.0905077326652577
As #DNF points out, because julia has no Tail Call Optimization,
it is better to do this iteratively;
julia> function (∧)(f::Function, i::Int)
function inner(x)
for ii in i:-1:1
x=f(x)
end
x
end
end
After warmup:
julia> #time((sqrt ∧ 1_000)(20e300)) #Iterative
0.000018 seconds (6 allocations: 192 bytes)
1.0
julia> #time((sqrt ^ 1_000)(20e300)) #Recursive
0.000522 seconds (2.00 k allocations: 31.391 KB)
1.0
#########
julia> #time((sqrt ∧ 10_000)(20e300)) #Iterative
0.000091 seconds (6 allocations: 192 bytes)
1.0
julia> #time((sqrt ^ 10_000)(20e300)) #Recursive
0.003784 seconds (20.00 k allocations: 312.641 KB)
1.0
#########
julia> #time((sqrt ∧ 30_000)(20e300)) # Iterative
0.000224 seconds (6 allocations: 192 bytes)
1.0
julia> #time((sqrt ^ 30_000)(20e300)) #Recursive
0.008128 seconds (60.00 k allocations: 937.641 KB)
1.0
#############
julia> #time((sqrt ∧ 100_000)(20e300)) #Iterative
0.000393 seconds (6 allocations: 192 bytes)
1.0
julia> #time((sqrt ^ 100_000)(20e300)) #Recursive
ERROR: StackOverflowError:
in (::##5#6{Base.#sqrt,Int64})(::Float64) at ./REPL[1]:1 (repeats 26667 times)
The overhead isn't too bad in this case, but that `StackOverflowError` at the end is a kicker.

[Edit: See bottom for simple solution without Iterators, though I suggest using it and all the useful functions inside the package]
With Iterators package, the following could be a solution:
julia> using Iterators # install with Pkg.add("Iterators")
julia> reduce((x,y)->y,take(iterate(sqrt,11231.0),5))
1.791229164345863
iterate does the composition logic (Do ?iterate on the REPL for description). The newer version of Iterators (still untagged) has a function called nth, which would make this even simpler:
nth(iterate(sqrt,11231.0),5)
As a side note, the (x,y)->y anonymous function could nicely be defined with a name since it could potentially be used often with reduce as in:
first(x,y) = x
second(x,y) = y
Now,
julia> reduce(second,take(iterate(sqrt,11231.0),5))
1.791229164345863
works. Also, without recursion (which entails stack allocation and waste), and allocation proportional to the depth of iteration, this could be more efficient, especially for higher iteration values than 5.
Without the Iterators package, a simple solution using foldl is
julia> foldl((x,y)->sqrt(x),1:4, init=11231.0)
1.791229164345863
As before, the reduction operation is key, this time it applies sqrt but ignores the iterator values which are only used to set the number of times the function is applied (perhaps a different iterator or vector than 1:4 could be used in the application for better readability of code)

function apply(f, x, n=1)
for _ in 1:n
x = f(x)
end
return x
end

I find neither of the above answers satisfying. They all work, but none of them are truly elegant. My personal favorite is this:
Base.repeat(f::Function, n::Integer) = reduce(∘, fill(f, n))
Of course, you don't even need to define repeat, you can just use the reduce(...) construct directly.
And this is how it would be used in the case of the original example:
julia> repeat(sqrt, 4)(11231)
1.791229164345863
or
julia> reduce(∘, fill(sqrt, 4))(11231)
1.791229164345863

Related

How to get variable names inside a function in julia

For example
function f(x)
# do something
# then I assigned the outside variable name of 'x' to y
println(y)
end
f(1)
I will get
# something and
1
then,
a = 1
f(a)
I will get
# something and
"a"
Is it possible in julia? If not, how can I get my function operation log?
The most idiomatic way would be to slightly change your interface of f and require a keyword argument:
julia> function f(;kwargs...)
for (k, v) in kwargs
println("$k = $v")
end
end
f (generic function with 1 method)
julia> f(a = 1)
a = 1
Alternatively (short of inspecting stack traces), you need something macro-based:
julia> struct Quot
expr
value
end
julia> macro quot(e)
return :($Quot($(QuoteNode(e)), $e))
end
#quot (macro with 1 method)
julia> function f2(x::Quot)
println(x)
end
f2 (generic function with 1 method)
julia> x = 2
2
julia> f2(#quot x)
Quot(:x, 2)
Depending on what you need a simples macro that dumps function calls that still get executed could be:
macro logs(expr)
#info expr
expr
end
And this can be used as:
julia> a = π/2;
julia> #logs sin(a)
[ Info: sin(a)
1.0

Are fast Anonymous functions automatic now?

Now that fast anonymous functions are native to julia, do I still have to use the decorator, or is it automatically implemented. Also when I pass a function as an argument into another function, can I static type it? What can I do to improve the run speed.
FastAnonymous is definitely not necessary anymore. Here's how you can verify this yourself:
julia> #noinline g(f, x) = f(x) # prevent inlining so you know it's general
g (generic function with 1 method)
julia> h1(x) = g(identity, x)
h1 (generic function with 1 method)
julia> h2(x) = g(sin, x)
h2 (generic function with 1 method)
julia> #code_warntype h1(1)
Variables
#self#::Core.Compiler.Const(h1, false)
x::Int64
Body::Int64
1 ─ %1 = Main.g(Main.identity, x)::Int64
└── return %1
julia> #code_warntype h2(1)
Variables
#self#::Core.Compiler.Const(h2, false)
x::Int64
Body::Float64
1 ─ %1 = Main.g(Main.sin, x)::Float64
└── return %1
julia> h3(x) = g(z->"I'm a string", x)
h3 (generic function with 1 method)
julia> #code_warntype h3(1)
Variables
#self#::Core.Compiler.Const(h3, false)
x::Int64
#9::getfield(Main, Symbol("##9#10"))
Body::String
1 ─ (#9 = %new(Main.:(##9#10)))
│ %2 = #9::Core.Compiler.Const(getfield(Main, Symbol("##9#10"))(), false)
│ %3 = Main.g(%2, x)::Core.Compiler.Const("I'm a string", false)
└── return %3
In every case Julia knows the return type, and that requires that it "understand" what your function-argument is doing. Moreover:
julia> m = first(methods(g))
g(f, x) in Main at REPL[1]:1
julia> m.specializations
Core.TypeMapEntry(Core.TypeMapEntry(Core.TypeMapEntry(nothing, Tuple{typeof(g),typeof(identity),Int64}, nothing, svec(), 1, -1, MethodInstance for g(::typeof(identity), ::Int64), true, true, false), Tuple{typeof(g),typeof(sin),Int64}, nothing, svec(), 1, -1, MethodInstance for g(::typeof(sin), ::Int64), true, true, false), Tuple{typeof(g),getfield(Main, Symbol("##9#10")),Int64}, nothing, svec(), 1, -1, MethodInstance for g(::getfield(Main, Symbol("##9#10")), ::Int64), true, true, false)
This is a bit hard to read, but if you look carefully you'll see that g has been compiled for 3 inputs:
Tuple{typeof(identity), Int64}
Tuple{typeof(sin), Int64}
Tuple{getfield(Main, Symbol("##9#10")),Int64}
(The compiled versions also take g itself as an extra argument, for reasons having to do with things like the internal implementation of keyword-argument handling, but let's ignore that for now.) The last one is the generated name for the type implementing the anonymous function. What this shows you is that each function has its own type, which is the reason why passing functions as arguments is fast.
For the gurus, there is one other factor that can come in to play: because type inference is subject to the unsolvable halting problem, there are circumstances where inference will decide that this is all getting too complex and abort "early." In such cases (which are relatively rare), it can help to force the compiler to specialize against a particular argument. In our example, that would mean declaring g as
#noinline g(f::F, x) where F = f(x)
rather than
#noinline g(f, x) = f(x)
That ::F is normally unnecessary and appears useless, but you can use it as a compiler-hint to increase the amount of effort used to infer the result. I don't recommend doing that by default (it makes your code a bit harder to read), but if you see weird performance problems it's one thing to try.

julia lang - how to apply multiple functions to a value

I would like to apply a set of functions to a value and get a set of values as output. I see in help?> groupby (DataFrames package) we can do:
> df |> groupby(:a) |> [sum, length]
> df |> groupby([:a, :b]) |> [sum, length]
but can we do
> [sum, length](groupby([:a, :b]))
MethodError: objects of type Array{Function,1} are not callable
square brackets [] for indexing an Array.
eval_user_input(::Any, ::Base.REPL.REPLBackend) at ./REPL.jl:64
in macro expansion at ./REPL.jl:95 [inlined]
in (::Base.REPL.##3#4{Base.REPL.REPLBackend})() at ./event.jl:68
or even
> [sum, length](1:5)
I would expect the output:
[15, 5]
Yes and no. (i.e. yes it's possible, but no, not with that syntax):
No: The syntax you see with |> and dataframes is not general syntax. It's just how the |> method is defined for dataframes. See its definition in file grouping.jl (line 377) and you'll see it's just a wrapper to another function, and it's defined to either accept a function, or a vector of functions.
PS: Note that the generic |> which "pipes" an argument into a function, only expects 1-argument functions on the right hand side, and has very little to do with this particular "dataframe-overloaded" method.
Yes:
You can apply a set of functions to a set of inputs in other ways.
One simple way, e.g. would be via a list comprehension:
julia> a = [1 2 3;2 3 4];
julia> [f(a) for f in [sum, length, size]]
3-element Array{Any,1}:
15
6
(2,3)
Or using map:
julia> map( (x) -> x(a), [sum, length, size])
etc.
PS: If you're keen to use |> to achieve this, clearly you could also do something like this:
julia> a |> (x) -> [sum(x), length(x), size(x)]
but presumably that defeats the purpose of what you're trying to do :)
Your proposed syntax is possible in Julia by adding a method to the type Array{T} (here, T is restricted to subtypes of Function):
julia> (a::Array{T}){T<:Function}(x) = [f(x) for f in a]
julia> [sin cos; exp sqrt](0)
2×2 Array{Float64,2}:
0.0 1.0
1.0 0.0
However, this has a large overhead if the number of functions is small. For maximum speed, one can use Tuples and a #generated function to unroll the loop manually:
julia> #generated (t::NTuple{N, Function}){N}(x) = :($((:(t[$i](x)) for i in 1:N)...),)
julia> (cos, sin)(0)
(1.0,0.0)

Memory allocation in Julia function

Here is a simple function in Julia 0.5.
function foo{T<:AbstractFloat}(x::T)
a = zero(T)
b = zero(T)
return x
end
I started with julia --track-allocation=user. then include("test.jl"). test.jl only has this function. Run foo(5.). Then Profile.clear_malloc_data(). foo(5.) again in the REPL. Quit julia. Look at the file test.jl.mem.
- function foo{T<:AbstractFloat}(x::T)
- a = zero(T)
194973 b = zero(T)
0 return x
- end
-
Why is there 194973 bytes of memory allocated here? This is also not the first line of the function. Although after Profile.clear_malloc_data(), this shouldn't matter.
Let's clarify some parts of the relevant documentation, which can be a little misleading:
In interpreting the results, there are a few important details. Under the user setting, the first line of any function directly called from the REPL will exhibit allocation due to events that happen in the REPL code itself.
Indeed, the line with allocation is not the first line. However, it is still the first tracked line, since Julia 0.5 has some issues with tracking allocation on the actual first statement (this has been fixed on v0.6). Note that it may also (contrary to what the documentation says) propagate into functions, even if they are annotated with #noinline. The only real solution is to ensure the first statement of what's being called is something you don't want to measure.
More significantly, JIT-compilation also adds to allocation counts, because much of Julia’s compiler is written in Julia (and compilation usually requires memory allocation). The recommended procedure is to force compilation by executing all the commands you want to analyze, then call Profile.clear_malloc_data() to reset all allocation counters. Finally, execute the desired commands and quit Julia to trigger the generation of the .mem files.
You're right that Profile.clear_malloc_data() prevents the allocation for JIT compilation being counted. However, this paragraph is separate from the first paragraph; clear_malloc_data does not do anything about allocation due to "events that happen in the REPL code itself".
Indeed, as I'm sure you suspected, there is no allocation in this function:
julia> function foo{T<:AbstractFloat}(x::T)
a = zero(T)
b = zero(T)
return x
end
foo (generic function with 1 method)
julia> #allocated foo(5.)
0
The numbers you see are due to events in the REPL itself. To avoid this issue, wrap the code to measure in a function. That is to say, we can use this as our test harness, perhaps after disabling inlining on foo with #noinline. For instance, here's a revised test.jl:
#noinline function foo{T<:AbstractFloat}(x::T)
a = zero(T)
b = zero(T)
return x
end
function do_measurements()
x = 0. # dummy statement
x += foo(5.)
x # prevent foo call being optimized out
# (it won't, but this is good practice)
end
Then a REPL session:
julia> include("test.jl")
do_measurements (generic function with 1 method)
julia> do_measurements()
5.0
julia> Profile.clear_malloc_data()
julia> do_measurements()
5.0
Which produces the expected result:
- #noinline function foo{T<:AbstractFloat}(x::T)
0 a = zero(T)
0 b = zero(T)
0 return x
- end
-
- function do_measurements()
155351 x = 0. # dummy statement
0 x += foo(5.)
0 x # prevent foo call being optimized out
- # (it won't, but this is good practice)
- end
-

Code Golf: Decision Tree

Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
In Google Code Jam 2009, Round 1B, there is a problem called Decision Tree that lent itself to rather creative solutions.
Post your shortest solution; I'll update the Accepted Answer to the current shortest entry on a semi-frequent basis, assuming you didn't just create a new language just to solve this problem. :-P
Current rankings:
107 Perl
121 PostScript (binary)
132 Ruby
154 Arc
160 PostScript (ASCII85)
170 PostScript
192 Python
196 JavaScript
199 Common Lisp
212 LilyPond
273 Scheme
280 R
281 sed w/ bc
312 Haskell
314 PHP
339 m4 w/ bc
346 C
381 Fortran
462 Java
718 OCaml
759 F#
1554 sed
C++ not qualified for now
sed in 1554 chars (pure) / 281 (with bc)
Yes, seriously.
Usage: sed -r -f thisfile.sed < input.in > output.out
(works on GNU sed)
1d
/ /!{x
s/^$/Case #Y:/
:i
s/9Y/Y0/
ti
s/#Y/#0Y/
s/:/:0123456789/
s/(.)Y(.*):[0-9]*\1(.).*/\3\2Y:/
x
G
s/.*\n|Y//gp
z
:p
N
/[()]/s/ |\n//g
y/()/JK/
tp
H
d}
G
s/\n[^J]*/ %/
s/[^JK]*$//
:c
s/J1?([.-9]+)(.*)K/\2#\1/
/%#/by
:b
/J/s/T//
s/J([^JK]*)K/TC\1B/
tb
/ (.+) .*%\1C/{s/%[^C]*/%/
s/T.*B//
by}
s/%.*T/%/
:y
y/CB/JK/
tc
s/.\.0*\b//g
:r
/#.*#/{s/\w*#\w*$/C&B/
s/C(\w)(.*B)/\1C\2~/
s/"[^"]*/&0/g
:t
s/(\w)(C.*)(\w)B(.*~)/\1\2B\3\4\1\3/
T
s/~(10|2[01]|3[0-2]|4[0-3]|5[0-4]|6[0-5]|7[0-6]|8[0-7]|9.)/&Q/
s/(.)(.)Q/\2\1/
s/~0\w/`00/
s/~1\B/`0/
s/~22/`04/
s/~23/`06/
s/~24/`08/
s/~33/`09/
s/~25/`10/
s/~26|~34/`12/
s/~27/`14/
s/~28|~44/`16/
s/~29|~36/`18/
s/~35/`15/
s/~45/`20/
s/~37/`21/
s/~38|~46/`24/
s/~55/`25/
s/~39/`27/
s/~47/`28/
s/~56/`30/
s/~48/`32/
s/~57/`35/
s/~49|~66/`36/
s/~58/`40/
s/~67/`42/
s/~59/`45/
s/~68/`48/
s/~77/`49/
s/~69/`54/
s/~78/`56/
s/~79/`63/
s/~88/`64/
s/~89/`72/
s/~99/`81/
s/`(.)(.)/~\1'\2/
bt
:
s/(~.)'/\1/
s/..'/K&/
/K/bk
:v
s/=(,?.)'/\1/
s/,/1'/
t
s/B(.*)~/\1B"/
tr
s/"(\w*)0/A\1/g
/A.*A/{s/A[^A]*$/J&K/
:k
s/([^A])(J.*)([^A])K/\2K\1\3/
s/K(10|2[01]|3[0-2]|4[0-3]|5[0-4]|6[0-5]|7[0-6]|8[^9]|9.)/&Q/
s/(.)(.)Q/\2\1/
s/K0/=/
s/K11/=2/
s/K12/=3/
s/K13|K22/=4/
s/K14|K23/=5/
s/K15|K24|K33/=6/
s/K16|K25|K34/=7/
s/K(17|26|35|44)/=8/
s/K(18|27|36|45)/=9/
s/K(19|28|37|46|55)/W0/
s/K(29|38|47|56)/W1/
s/K(39|48|57|66)/W2/
s/K49|K58|K67/W3/
s/K59|K68|K77/W4/
s/K69|K78/W5/
s/K79|K88/W6/
s/K89/W7/
s/K99/W8/
s/W/=,/
/'/bv
s/\b=/K:/
tk
s/[:JK]A?//g
s/,/,0123456789GF/
s/(.),.*\1(.).*F/\2/
s/G/,0/
tk}
/A.*A/bv}
s/\w*C.*A//
tr
s/.*#/./
This solution omits the leading zero in front of the decimal point, and does not handle cases where the answer is 1.00. Luckily, the GCJ judge accepts the lack of a zero, and does not have any cases where the answer is 1.00.
To include the leading zero, change the last line to s/.*#/0./; and to handle a 1.00 case, append the line s/^$/1/.
Here's a solution that outsources the multiplication to bc:
1d
/ /!{x
s/\n.*//
s/.*/echo 0&+1|bc/e
x
g
s/.*/Case #&:/p
:p
N
/[()]/s/ |\n//g
y/()/JK/
tp
H
d}
G
s/\n[^J]*/ %/
s/[^JK]*$//
:c
s/J([.-9]+)(.*)K/\2*\1/
/%\*/s/.*%.(.*)/echo \1|bc -l/e
:b
/J/s/T//
s/J([^JK]*)K/TC\1B/
tb
/ (.+) .*%\1C/{s/%[^C]*/%/
s/T.*B//
b}
s/%.*T/%/
:
y/CB/JK/
tc
Perl in 107 characters
say("Case #$_:"),
$_=eval"''".'.<>'x<>,
s:[a-z]+:*(/ $&\\s/?:g,s/\)\s*\(/):/g,
eval"\$_=<>;say$_;"x<>for 1..<>
Newlines for legibility; none of them is necessary or counted in.
It uses features found only in the latest versions of Perl, so run with perl -M5.010 or later.
I used to be a Perl noob too, so this works almost the same as the ruby one. Original version 126 chars, optimizations by peutri.
Backlinks:
Word Aligned - Power Programming
LilyPond: 212 characters
Craziness! Utter ridiculousness!! LilyPond, with its built-in Scheme interpreter, manages to outdo Scheme by more than FIFTY BYTES! Holy acrobatic flying mooses in tights!!
x=#lambda
w=#read
#(letrec((v(x(a)(map a(iota(w)1))))(c(x(f q)(*(car q)(if(any list? q)(c
f((if(memq(cadr q)f)caddr cadddr)q))1)))))(v(x(i)(w)(set! #(w))(format
#t"Case #~a:
~{~y~}"i(v(x i(w)(c(v(x i(w)))#)))))))
Usage: lilypond thisfile.ly <input.in >output.out 2>/dev/null
Credit goes to cky for writing the Scheme solution this was based on, though this version is now substantially different. Seriously, though, the Scheme could be golfed a bit further...
PostScript: 170 (regular) / 160 (ASCII85) / 121 (binary)
My shortest (regular) PostScript solution so far, provided that you rename the input file to "r" (170 characters, including newlines); uses a GhostScript-specific procedure (=only):
1[/:{repeat}/!{exch token{\ exch known{/<>}if]pop]]3 index mul
!}if}(]){token pop}/?(r)(r)file([){?]}>>begin
1[{(Case #)2{=only}:(:)=[/|[def[{[/\<<[{[/}:>>def |]! =}:}for
Usage: cp input.in r; gs -q -dNOPROMPT -dNODISPLAY -dBATCH thisfile.ps > output.out
Here's a binary version of this in 121 bytes (backslashes and unprintable characters escaped):
1[/!{\x92>\x92\xab{\\\x92>\x92`\x92p{]\x92u}if]]3\x92X\x92l!}if}(]){\x92\xab\x92u}/r(r)\x928\x92A([){r]}>>\x92\r1[{(Case #)\x92v=only[/:\x928[\x923=[{[/\\<<[{[/}\x92\x83>>\x923:]! =}\x92\x83}\x92H
If characters outside the ASCII printable range are disallowed, PS has built-in ASCII85 encoding of binary sources. We therefore have the following 160-byte solution in all ASCII printable characters:
1[([){r]}/r(r)<~OuSUj0-P\*5*Dsn>`q:6#$5JU?'9>YBkCXV1Qkk'Ca"4#Apl(5.=75YP')1:5*?#0>C.bc#<6!&,:Se!4`>4SH!;p_OuQ[/1Herh>;'5D4Bm/:07B"95!G,c3aEmO4aiKGI?I,~>cvx exec
Ruby in 132
Improved by leonid. Newlines are essential.
def j
'1
'..gets
end
j.map{|c|s=j.map{gets}*''
puts"Case #%d:"%c,j.map{gets;eval s.gsub(/[a-z]+/,'*(/ \&\b/?').gsub /\)\s*\(/,'):'}}
Ruby in 136
def j;1..gets.to_i;end;j.map{|c|m=j.map{gets}*"";puts"Case ##{c}:";j.map{gets;p eval m.gsub(/[a-z]+/,'*(/ \0\s/?').gsub /\)\s*\(/,'):'}}
I just learned about *"" being equivalent to .join"". Also realised that map could be used in a few places
Ruby in 150
1.upto(gets.to_i){|c|m=eval("gets+"*gets.to_i+"''");puts"Case ##{c}:";1.upto(gets.to_i){gets;p eval m.gsub(/[a-z]+/,'*(/ \0\s/?').gsub /\)\s*\(/,'):'}}
I am just a noob to ruby, so there is probably still a lot of room for improvement
Python in 192
import re;S=re.sub;R=raw_input;I=input;c=0;exec r"c+=1;L=S('\) *\(',')or ',S('([a-z]+)','*(\' \\1 \'in a and',eval(('+R()'*I('Case #%s:\n'%c))[1:])));exec'a=R()+\' \';print eval(L);'*I();"*I()
Common Lisp, 199 bytes
Wrapped every 80 characters:
(defun r()(read))(dotimes(i(r))(format t"~&Case #~D:"(1+ i))(r)(set'z(r))(dotime
s(a(r))(r)(print(do((g(mapcar'read(make-list(r))))(p 1(*(pop c)p))(c z(if(find(p
op c)g)(car c)(cadr c))))((not c)p)))))
Spaced and indented:
(defun r () (read))
(dotimes (i (r))
(format t "~&Case #~D:" (1+ i))
(r)
(set 'z (r))
(dotimes (a (r))
(r)
(print
(do ((g (mapcar 'read (make-list (r))))
(p 1 (* (pop c) p))
(c z (if (find (pop c) g)
(car c)
(cadr c))))
((not c) p)))))
C - 346 bytes
Compile with gcc -w
#define N{int n=atoi(gets(A));for(;n--;)
T[999];F[99];char*t,*f,*a,A[99];float p(){float
d,m=1;for(;*t++^40;);sscanf(t,"%f %[^ (]",&d,A);if(*A^41){for(f=F;m**f;){for(;*f&&*f++^32;);for(a=A;*a&&*f==*a;f++,a++);m=*a||*f&64;}d*=!m*p()+m*p();}return
d;}main(I)N{printf("Case #%d:\n",I++);t=T;N
for(gets(t);*++t;);}N gets(F),t=T,printf("%f\n",p());}}}
Arc, 143 154 characters
Very similar to the CL one, but Arc sure has terse identifiers. Wrapped every 40 chars:
(for i 1((= r read))(prn"Case #"i":")(r)
(= z(r))(repeat(r)(r)(loop(= g(n-of(r)(r
))c z p 1)c(= p(*(pop c)p)c(if(pos(pop c
)g)c.0 cadr.c)))prn.p))
Indented:
(for i 1 ((= r read))
(prn "Case #" i ":")
(r)
(= z (r))
(repeat (r)
(r)
(loop (= g (n-of (r) (r))
c z
p 1)
c
(= p (* (pop c) p)
c (if (pos (pop c) g)
(c 0)
(cadr c))))
(prn p)))
Backlink: Word Aligned - Power Programming
JavaScript in 196 bytes
r='replace'
q=readline
for(n=0,t=q();t-n++;){for(print('Case #'+n+':'),d='',x=q();x--;d+=q());for(x=q();x--;)print(eval(d[r](/([a-z]+)/g,'*({'+q()[r](/ /g,':1,z')+':1}.z$1?')[r](/\) *\(/g,'):')))}
Usage: $ smjs thisfile.js <input.in
With contributions by Hyperlisk.
PHP in 314
<?php function q(){return trim(fgets(STDIN));}for($n=q($x=0);$x++<$n;){for($s=q($t='');$s--;$t.=q());echo"Case #$x:\n";for($z=q();$z--;){$l=explode(' ',q());$l[0]=0;printf("%f\n",eval('return'.preg_replace(array('/\(/','/(\w+),/','/(\d\)*),\((\d)/','/^./'),array(',(','*(in_array("$1",$l,1)?','$1:$2'),$t).';'));}}
FORTRAN - 381
Save as a.F95
Compile with f95 a.F95
#define _ ENDDO
#define A READ(t(k:l-1),*),a
#define Q j=1,n;READ"(A)",s
#define R READ*,n;DO
#define S k+SCAN(t(k:),'()')
CHARACTER(999)s,t,u;R i=1,n;t="";PRINT"('Case #'i0':')",i
R Q;t=TRIM(t)//s;_;R Q;d=1;k=1;DO;k=S;l=S-1
IF(t(l:l)>"(")EXIT;A,u;d=d*a;k=l;m=0
IF(INDEX(s," "//TRIM(u)//" ")>0)CYCLE;DO;IF(')'>t(k:k))m=m+2;m=m-1;k=k+1
IF(1>m)EXIT;k=S-1;_;_;A;d=d*a;PRINT*,d;_;_;END
By using the default format, each of the results starts with 2 spaces, but the google judge permits it. Thanks google judge!
EXPANDED VERSION
CHARACTER(999)s,t,u
READ*,n
DO i=1,n
t=""
PRINT"('Case #'I0':')",i
READ*,n
DO j=1,n
READ"(A)",s
t=TRIM(t)//s
ENDDO
READ*,n
DO j=1,n
READ"(A)",s
d=1
k=1
DO
k=k+SCAN(t(k:),'()')
l=k+SCAN(t(k:),'()')-1
IF(t(l:l)>"(")THEN
READ(t(k:l-1),*),a
d=d*a
PRINT*,d
EXIT
ELSE
READ(t(k:l-1),*),a,u
d=d*a
k=l
m=0
IF(INDEX(s," "//TRIM(u)//" ")>0)CYCLE
DO
IF(')'>t(k:k))m=m+2
m=m-1
k=k+1
IF(1>m)EXIT
k=k+SCAN(t(k:),'()')-1
ENDDO
ENDIF
ENDDO
ENDDO
ENDDO
END
Haskell, 312 characters
Here's another aproach to Haskell. I left the dirty work to the Prelude's lex. The wrapping around it is Text.ParserCombinators.ReadP. Importing it cost 36 characters on its own—ugh!
The parser is a Features -> SExp -> Cuteness function, which spares me most of the type declarations in quibble's/yairchu's solution.
import Text.ParserCombinators.ReadP
main=f(\t->do putStrLn$"Case #"++show t++":";s<-r g;r$print.fst.head.($id=<<s).readP_to_S.d.tail.words=<<g)
d x=do"("<-e;w<-e;c<-do{f<-e;y<-d x;n<-d x;u$if elem f x then y else n}<++u 1.0;e;u$c*read w
f x=do n<-g;mapM x[1..read n]
e=readS_to_P lex
r=f.const
g=getLine
u=return
It used to use Control.Monad's join, forM_ and replicateM, but it turns out it takes less space to redefine them approximately than to import.
I also abandoned the Prelude's readParen in favor of just calling lex before and after. In the current version, there is no need to verify the closing parenthesis: on a valid input it will always be there. On the other hand, it is vital to check the opening one: since the number is only converted after the whole subexpression has been read, a lot of backtracking would be needed to align to the correct parse.
On a theoretical machine with infinite memory and time to spare, the "("<- part might be dropped (4 characters' gain, 308 in total). Unless the call to read just aborts. On mine, the stack just overflows pretty fast.
Java in 467 bytes
This uses the javascript interpreter contained in java 6.
import java.util.*;class D{static{Scanner c=new
Scanner(System.in);int n=c.nextInt(),i=0,l;while(i++<n){l=c.nextInt();String
s="(";while(l-->=0)s+=c.nextLine();System.out.println("Case #"+i+":");l=c.nextInt();while(l-->0)try{c.next();System.out.println(new
javax.script.ScriptEngineManager().getEngineByName("js").eval(s.replace(")","))").replaceAll("\\) *\\(",":(").replaceAll("[a-z]+","*(/ $0 /.test('"+c.nextLine()+" ')?")));}catch(Exception
x){}}System.exit(0);}}
Thanks Varan, Chris and pfn (indirectly) for helping me shorten it.
Please see my other (even shorter!) java answer.
m4 with echo and bc, 339 bytes
This solution is a complete and utter hack, and it gives me a headache. It contains, among other things, escaped double quotes, unescaped double quotes, unescapable backquote and single quote pairs (including a nested pair seven quotes deep), unquoted regular expressions, outsourcing decimal multiplication to bc, and the use of craZy caSE to circumvent macro expansion. But it had to be done, I guess. :p
This adds an "ultimate macroizing" solution to the previous kinds of solutions (iterated loops, recursion w/ lambda mapping, labels and branches, regexp and eval, etc.)
I think a good term for this is "macroni code" :D
(wrapped every 60 characters, for clarity)
define(T,`translit($#)')define(Q,`patsubst($#)')define(I,0)Q
(T(T(T(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(T(include(A),(),<>),>\s*>,>>),>\s*<,>;),\
([a-z]+\)\s*<,`*ifElsE<rEgExp<P;``````` \1 ''''''';0>;0;<'),
^<,`defiNe<````I';iNcr<I>>\\"Case `#'I:\\"defiNe<`A'''';'),^
[0-9]*),.+ [0-9]+.*,`dEfiNE<```P';`\& '''>A'),<>;N,`(),n'),E
,e),()),.*,`syscmd(`echo "\&"|bc -l')')
Usage: $ cp input.in A; m4 thisfile.m4 > output.out
I'm an m4 n00b, though, having learned it only an hour before writing this. So there's probably room for improvement.
C++ in 698 bytes
Compile with 'g++ -o test source.cpp -include iostream -include vector -include sstream'
#define R(x,f,t) for(int x=f;x<t;x++){
#define S(x) x.size()
#define H string
#define U while
#define I if
#define D cin>>
#define X t.substr(p,S(t))
using namespace std;
int main(){int h,l,n,a,p,Y,W;D h;for(int q=1;q<=h;q++){D l;H s;char c;D c;R(i,0,l)H L;getline(cin,L);R(j,0,S(L))I (L[j]==41||L[j]==40)s+=32;s+=L[j];I(L[j]==40)s+=32;}}D a;printf("Case #%d:\n",q);R(i,0,a)H N;D N;D n;vector<H>f;R(j,0,n)D N;f.push_back(N);}H t=s;float P=1;p=0;U(p<S(t)-1){p=0;U(t[p]!=48&&t[p]!=49)p++;t=X;stringstream T(t);float V;T>>V;H F;T>>F;P*=V;I(F[0]==41)break;Y=0;R(j,0,S(f))if(F==f[j])Y=1;}p=t.find(40)+1;t=X;p=0;I(Y==0){W=1;U (W>0){I(t[p]==40)W++;I(t[p]==41)W--;p++;}t=X;p=0;}}cout<<P<<endl;}}return 0;}
EDIT: I'm sorry; I thought it was ok for the includes (eg, C works even w/o including basic libraries), while I'm sure it would be if I decleared the defines this way.
I'm not home now, and I won't be for some time: I won't be able to modify it. Just ignore my submission.
OCaml in 718 bytes
I'm an OCaml n00b, so this is probably much longer than it needs to be.
Usage: ocaml thisfile.ml <input.in >output.out
#load"str.cma";;open List;;open String;;open Str;;let x=length and
y=Printf.printf and e=global_replace and h=float_of_string and b=regexp and
k=index and r=read_line and a=read_int and w s m c=sub s(c+1)(m-c-1);;for i=1to
a()do y"Case #%d:\n"i;let t=let n=a()in let rec g d j=if j>n then d else
g(d^(r()))(j+1)in e(b" ")""(e(b"\\b")"^"(g""1))and n=a()in let rec z j=if j>n
then()else let q=tl(split(b" ")(r()))in let rec g l j s p=let o=k s '('and c=k
s ')'in if j then let f=w s c o in if contains f '('then let m=k s '^'in let
c=index_from s(m+1)'^'in g 0(mem(w s c m)q)(w s(x s)c)(h(w s m o)*.p)else h f*.p
else if o<c then g(l+1)j(w s(x s)o)p else g(l-1)(l=1)(w s(x s)c)p in y"%f\n"(g
0(0=0)t 1.);z(j+1)in z 1done
Scheme (Guile 1.8)
Here's my version at 278 bytes (with improvements from KirarinSnow to bring it down to 273), after stripping off all the newlines (except ones in string literals, of course). It only works on Guile 1.8 (since in standard Scheme, define is a syntax, not an object, but Guile represents it as an object anyway).
(define ! define)
(!(c f p w . r)(if(null? r)(* p w)(apply c f(* p w)((if(memq(car r)f)cadr caddr)r))))
(!(d . l)(map display l))
(!(r . x)(read))
(! n(r))
(do((i 1(1+ i)))((> i n))(r)(let((t(r)))(d"Case #"i":
")(do((a(r)(1- a)))((= a 0))(r)(d(apply c(map r(iota(r)))1 t)"
"))))
Pure java in 440 bytes
A shorter java solution that doesn't use any eval trick. Can be reduced to 425 by removing System.exit(0) if stderr output is ignored.
import java.util.*;enum A{_;Scanner c,d;float p(String a){return
d.nextFloat()*(d.hasNext("\\D+")?a.contains(' '+d.next()+' ')?p(a)+0*p(a):0*p(a)+p(a):1);}{c=new
Scanner(System.in);for(int n=c.nextInt(),i=0,l;i++<n;){String
s="";for(l=c.nextInt();l-->=0;)s+=c.nextLine();System.out.println("Case #"+i+":");for(l=c.nextInt();l-->0;){c.next();d=new
Scanner(s.replaceAll("[()]"," "));System.out.println(p(c.nextLine()+' '));}}System.exit(0);}}
Haskell, 514 bytes (I suck?).
Based on quibble's solution:
import Control.Monad
import Text.ParserCombinators.Parsec
data F=N|F String(Float,F)(Float,F)
r=return
f=many1 letter>>= \i->w>>d>>= \t->d>>=r.F i t
d=char '('>>w>>many1(oneOf".0123456789")>>= \g->w>>(f<|>r N)>>= \p->char ')'>>w>>r(read g,p)
w=many$oneOf" \n"
g=getLine
l=readLn
m=replicateM
main=l>>= \n->forM_[1..n]$ \t->putStrLn("Case #"++show t++":")>>l>>=(`m`g)>>=(\(Right q)->l>>=(`m`p q)).parse d"".join
z(p,f)=(p*).y f
y N _=1
y(F n t f)x=z(if n`elem`x then t else f)x
p q=fmap(drop 2.words)g>>=print.z q
C in 489 bytes
Code wrapped at 80 chars, there are actually just 3 lines.
Save in a.c and compile with: gcc -w a.c -o a
#define S int I,N;scanf("%d\n",&N);for(I=-1;++I<N;)
#define M 1000
char B[M],Z[M],Q[M]={' '},*F[M],*V;float W[M],H;int J,C,L[M],R[M];t(){V=strtok(0
," \n()");}p(){int U=C++;F[U]=0;if(!V)t();sscanf(V,"%f",W+U);t();if(V&&*V>='a')s
trcpy(Q+1,V),V=0,F[U]=strdup(strcat(Q," ")),L[U]=p(),R[U]=p();return U;}main(){S
{printf("Case #%d:\n",I+1);*B=0;{S strcat(B,gets(Z));}V=strtok(B," \n(");C=0,p()
;{S{strcat(gets(B)," ");for(J=0,H=W[0];F[J];J=strstr(B,F[J])?L[J]:R[J],H*=W[J]);
printf("%f\n",H);};}}}
F#: 759 significant chars (Wow, I'm bad at this ;) )
Minimized version
open System.Text.RegularExpressions
type t=T of float*(string*t*t)option
let rec e=function x,T(w,Some(s,a,b))->e(x,if Set.contains s x then a else b)*w|x,T(w,_)->w
let rec h x=Regex.Matches(x, #"\(|\)|\d\.\d+|\S+")|>Seq.cast<Match>|>Seq.map (fun x -> x.Value)|> Seq.toList
let rec p=function ")"::y->p y|"("::w::x::y->match x with ")"->T(float w,None),y|n->let a,f=p y in let b,g=p f in T(float w,Some(n,a,b)),g
let solve input =
Regex.Matches(input,#"(\(((?<s>\()|[^()]|(?<-s>\)))*\)(?(s)(?!)))\s+\d+\s+((\S+\s\d(.+)?\s*)+)")
|>Seq.cast<Match>
|>Seq.map(fun m->fst(p(h(m.Groups.[1].Value))), [for a in m.Groups.[3].Value.Trim().Split([|'\n'|])->set(a.Split([|' '|]))])
|>Seq.iteri(fun i (r,c)->printfn"Case #%i"(i+1);c|>Seq.iter(fun x->printfn"%.7F"(e(x, r))))
Readable version
open System.Text.RegularExpressions
type decisionTree = T of float * (string * decisionTree * decisionTree) option
let rec eval = function
| x, T(w, Some(s, a, b)) -> eval(x, if Set.contains s x then a else b) * w
| x, T(w, _) -> w
// creates a token stream
let rec tokenize tree =
Regex.Matches(tree, #"\(|\)|\d\.\d+|\S+")
|> Seq.cast<Match>
|> Seq.map (fun x -> x.Value)
|> Seq.toList
// converts token stream into a decisionTree
let rec parse = function
| ")"::xs -> parse xs
| "("::weight::x::xs ->
match x with
| ")" -> T(float weight, None), xs
| name ->
let t1, xs' = parse xs
let t2, xs'' = parse xs'
T(float weight, Some(name, t1, t2)), xs''
// uses regex to transform input file into a Seq<decisionTree, list<set<string>>, which each item in our
// list will be tested against the decisionTree
let solve input =
Regex.Matches(input, #"(\(((?<s>\()|[^()]|(?<-s>\)))*\)(?(s)(?!)))\s+\d+\s+((\S+\s\d(.+)?\s*)+)")
|> Seq.cast<Match>
|> Seq.map (fun m -> fst(parse(tokenize(m.Groups.[1].Value))), [for a in m.Groups.[3].Value.Trim().Split([|'\n'|]) -> set(a.Split([|' '|])) ])
|> Seq.iteri (fun i (tree, testCases) ->
printfn "Case #%i" (i+1)
testCases |> Seq.iter (fun testCase -> printfn "%.7F" (eval (testCase, tree)))
)
R in 280 bytes
Note: On the standard distribution of R (as of v. 2.9.2), this program does not pass the large input and fails on just Case 28 (which is nested to 99 levels), generating a "contextstack overflow". To fix this, modify the line in src/main/gram.c that reads
#define CONTEXTSTACK_SIZE 50
and replace the 50 with something like 500. Then recompile. Et voilà!
n=0
g=gsub
eval(parse(text=g('[^
]* [0-9]+( [^
]*|
)','f=c(\\1)
cat(eval(d),"
")
',g('
\\(','
cat("Case #",n<-n+1,":
",sep="")
d=expression(',g('" "','","',g(')\\s*\\(',',',g(' *("[a-z]+")\\s*\\(','*ifelse(\\1%in%f,',g('([a-z]+)','"\\1"',paste(readLines('A'),collapse='
')))))))))
Usage (requires renaming input): cp input.in A; R -q --slave -f thisfile.R >output.out