So I'm just starting to learn Eiffel. One of the first exercises in the book I'm using says to make a function that does base^exp without using ^. I've copied my code below.
class
APPLICATION
inherit
ARGUMENTS
create
make
feature {NONE} -- Initialization
make
-- Run application.
do
create power(2;3)
printf("2 to the power of 3 is " + answer)
end
power(base : REAL; exp : INTEGER) : REAL
-- computers base raised to the bower of exp without using ^
local
remain : INTEGER
do
remain := exp
if remain = 0 then
result := 1
else
from
until
remain = 0
loop
result := result * result
remain := remain -1
end
end
end
end
How do I use this? Do I need it on the same level as feature{NONE}'s make? I know how I'm calling it is wrong, and I can't find anything in the chapter I just read, or online on how to pass parameters into it or how to use it's results.
There are several issues with the original code:
create is used to create an object, but you are not going to create anything, but to get a result of a computation of the function power by calling it. Therefore the keyword create is not needed.
You are using an entity answer to report the result of evaluation on a screen. However it is not declared anywhere. I believe the proper place would be a local variable declaration section.
The entity answer is not initialized to the result of the function power. This is usually done by an assignment instruction.
Feature arguments are separated by a comma, not by a semicolon.
From the original code it's unclear what is the type of the variable answer. Assuming it matches the type of the function power, before adding it to a string, it needs to be converted to a string. This is done by calling the feature out.
The standard feature for printing a string to a console is print, not printf.
Combining the critical points above, we get
make
-- Run application.
local
answer: REAL
do
answer := power(2, 3)
print ("2 to the power of 3 is " + answer.out)
end
After that the code can be compiled. Now less critical points:
It is a good style to put features to a dedicated feature clauses, so I would add a line like feature -- Basic operations before the feature power.
The implementation of the feature power has at least two problems. I'm not going to detail them here, but would give two hints instead:
by default numeric Result is initialized to 0, this needs to be taken into account for operations that use it without first assigning any other value
even though an argument base is passed to the function power it remains unused in the original version of the code
Related
I have been playing with Lua for the past week and I ended up writing this peace of code. I find it really useful that you can dynamically create new functions that "inherit" other functions, so programmers must have a name for it. My questions are:
What is this called?
Is there a better way to do this? (cycle over a data structure and create add-on functions that "improve" existing functions)
D = {
name = {
value = nil,
offset = 0,
update = function (self)
self.value = "Berlin"
end,
},
}
--Dynamic function definition
for i in pairs(D) do
D[i].upAndWrite = function(self)
self:update()
print("upAndWrite was here")
end
end
print(D.name.value)
D.name:upAndWrite()
print(D.name.value)
Result:
nil
upAndWrite was here
Berlin
I don't think that what you're doing have special name for it, it's just on-the-fly function creation.
There are few notes regarding your code:
Proper for loop
for i in pairs(D) do
…
end
In programming, variable i is generally used for counter loops, like in
for i=1,100 do
…
end
Here, pairs returns an iterator function and the idiomatic way to use it is
for k,v in pairs(D) do
…
end
Here k is a key (like i in your code) and v is a value (use it instead of indexing table like D[k] or D[i] in your code when you need to access the corresponding value).
There's no need to create functions on the fly!
Another important thing is that you create new function on each loop iteration. While this feature is very powerful, you're not using it at all as you don't store anything using upvalues and only access data through arguments.
A better way to do it would be creating function once and assigning it to every field:
-- Define D here
do
local function upAndWrite(self)
self:update()
print("upAndWrite was here")
end
for k,v in pairs(D) do
v.upAndWrite = upAndWrite -- Use our function
end
end
-- Perform tests here
What does on-the-fly function creation allow?
As mentioned above, you can utilize this very powerful mechanism of closures in certain situations. Here's a simple example:
local t = {}
for i = 1, 100 do
-- Create function to print our value
t[i] = function() print(i) end
-- Create function to increment value by one
t[-i] = function() i=i+1 end
end
t[1]() -- Prints 1
t[20]() -- Prints 20
t[-20]() -- Increment upvalue by one
t[20]() -- Now it is 21!
This example demonstrates one possible usage of upvalues and the fact that many functions can share them. This can be useful in a variety of situations together with the fact that upvalues can't be changed by side code (without use of debug library) and can be trusted in general.
I hope my answer covers what you wanted to know.
Note: Also, this language is called Lua, not LUA.
As a whole it doesn't have a name, no. There's lots of concepts that play into this:
First Class Functions aka. functions that can be assigned to variables and passed around just like numbers or strings.
Anonymous Functions aka. functions that are created without giving it a name explicitly. All functions in Lua are technically anonymous, but often they are assigned into a variable right after creation.
Metaprogramming aka. writing programs that write programs. A loop that creates functions (or methods) on an arbitrary number of objects is very simple, but I'd count it as metaprogramming.
Lua Tables; this may seem obvious, but consider that not all languages have a feature like this. Javascript has objects which are similar, but Ruby for example has no comparable feature.
If you're gonna use pairs, you might as well make use of both variables.
for key, object in pairs(D) do
function object:upAndWrite(self)
self:update()
print("upAndWrite was here")
end
end
Though that would create many closures, which means more work for the garbage collector, more memory usage and slower execution speed.
for key, object in pairs(D) do
print(object.upAndWrite) -- All the functions are different
end
It's a good first stage, but after refactoring it a bit you could get this:
do
local method = function(self) -- Create only one closure
self:update()
print("upAndWrite was here")
end
for key, object in pairs(D) do
object.upAndWrite = method -- Use single closure many times
end
end
Now there's only one closure that's shared among all the tables.
for key, object in pairs(D) do
print(object.upAndWrite) -- All the functions are the same
end
I'm trying to figure out a way to get all functions in a Lua script. This script has been compiled into a function through loadfile. For example, I'd want to get every function defined in the script below.
function example1()
end
local function example2()
end
local library = {}
function library:example3()
end
(function()
-- Functions like this too.
end)
The names aren't important, I'm just looking for a way to get the actual functions so I can use them in debug.getinfo and get information like the lines they were defined in. I have LuaJIT, if that makes this any easier. Is something like this even possible? Thanks in advance.
I guess the file declares its functions as global, or it would be really easy to track what is returned.
If that's the case, you can cycle through all the global items with a generic for loop, and only take the functions from them:
allFuncs = {}
for key, item in pairs(_G) do
if type(item) == "function" then
allFuncs[#allFuncs + 1] = item
end
end
(_G is the table holding all the global variables)
Then you will have a list (allFuncs) holding all the functions declared, but be aware that it will also contain default functions like setmetatable or xpcall.
It's easy to modify the code to not make this happen, but only use this for testing / learning:
function allFuncs()
local funcsTab = {}
for key, item in pairs(_G) do
if type(item) == "function" then
funcsTab[#funcsTab + 1] = item
end
end
return funcsTab
end
defaultFuncs = allFuncs()
--then you load your file: other functions get declared
--we create another table containg the default + the new functions
myFuncs = allFuncs()
--then you subtract the first table from the second
for i = 1, #myFuncs do
for o = 1, #defaultFuncs do
if myFuncs[i] == defaultFuncs[o] then
table.remove(myFuncs, i)
end
end
end
This is if your file doesn't return anything and declares its functions as globals.
If the file declares them as local and then returns a table containing them, just use the first piece of code replacing _G with that returned table.
This is not likely to be possible without syntax or bytecode analysis as each function definition is an assignment (just has different forms in your examples). See the bytecode inspector and a related discussion here. For the syntax analysis you can use metalua or something like lua-loose-parser. Keep in mind that even those tools won't give you the entire list of functions as some functions may be defined dynamically using loadstring (or similar methods).
If you only have access to the result of loadfile, then you best bet is to use the bytecode analyzer.
This is possible using jit.attach in LuaJIT.
You can attach callbacks to a number of compiler events with
jit.attach. The callback can be called:
when a function has been compiled to bytecode ("bc");
when trace recording starts or stops ("trace");
as a trace is being recorded ("record");
or when a trace exits through a side exit ("texit").
http://wiki.luajit.org/JIT-Compiler-API#jit-attach
jit.attach(function(f)
local funcInfo = jit.util.funcinfo(f)
end, "bc")
It seems that I can't put a record field as a parameter?
joueurActuel.c1 := predColonne(joueurActuel.c1);
The function:
function predColonne (c : T_Colonne) return T_Colonne;
where T_Colonne is a subtype of Positive.
joueurActuel is an in parameter (joueurActuel : in T_Joueur;) of a function containing the assignment above. T_Joueur is a record.
This is by design. A formal parameter of mode in is a constant view; it cannot be updated within the subprogram body. A constant cannot be the target of an assignment operation. See section 3.3 od Ada Reference Manual, paragraphs 13, 15, 17 and 25 in particular.
So, either you have to store the result of predColonne(joueurActuel.c1) in a local variable, or change joueurActuel into an in out parameter if it's correct from the business logic point of view.
The in mode in joueurActuel : in T_Joueur; is a guarantee you have given to the compiler that you will not update or modify joueurActuel in any way within the procedure where you declared this formal parameter. The fact that it's a record is nothing to do with the problem.
joueurActuel.c1 := predColonne(joueurActuel.c1); is an attempt to modify joueurActuel, despite the guarantee.
The compiler, correctly, rejects it.
If this is really what you want to do, then mode in out will allow it, but first ask yourself it there is a better design. Does the rest of the program need to see the change? If so, then in out is acceptable. Otherwise, copying it to a local variable as Ondrej suggested it, and only modifying the local copy, will work.
First, here the way i'm calling the function :
eval([functionName '(''stringArg'')']); % functionName = 'someStringForTheFunctionName'
Now, I have two functionName functions in my path, one that take the stringArg and another one that takes something else. I'm getting some errors because right now the first one it finds is the function that doesn't take the stringArg. Considering the way i'm calling the functionName function, how is it possible to call the correct function?
Edit:
I tried the function which :
which -all someStringForTheFunctionName
The result :
C:\........\x\someStringForTheFunctionName
C:\........\y\someStringForTheFunctionName % Shadowed
The shadowed function is the one i want to call.
Function names must be unique in MATLAB. If they are not, so there are duplicate names, then MATLAB uses the first one it finds on your search path.
Having said that, there are a few options open to you.
Option 1. Use # directories, putting each version in a separate directory. Essentially you are using the ability of MATLAB to apply a function to specific classes. So, you might set up a pair of directories:
#char
#double
Put your copies of myfun.m in the respective directories. Now when MATLAB sees a double input to myfun, it will direct the call to the double version. When MATLAB gets char input, it goes to the char version.
BE CAREFUL. Do not put these # directories explicitly on your search path. DO put them INSIDE a directory that is on your search path.
A problem with this scheme is if you call the function with a SINGLE precision input, MATLAB will probably have a fit, so you would need separate versions for single, uint8, int8, int32, etc. You cannot just have one version for all numeric types.
Option 2. Have only one version of the function, that tests the first argument to see if it is numeric or char, then branches to perform either task as appropriate. Both pieces of code will most simply be in one file then. The simple scheme will have subfunctions or nested functions to do the work.
Option 3. Name the functions differently. Hey, its not the end of the world.
Option 4: As Shaun points out, one can simply change the current directory. MATLAB always looks first in your current directory, so it will find the function in that directory as needed. One problem is this is time consuming. Any time you touch a directory, things slow down, because there is now disk input needed.
The worst part of changing directories is in how you use MATLAB. It is (IMHO) a poor programming style to force the user to always be in a specific directory based on what code inputs they wish to run. Better is a data driven scheme. If you will be reading in or writing out data, then be in THAT directory. Use the MATLAB search path to categorize all of your functions, as functions tend not to change much. This is a far cleaner way to work than requiring the user to migrate to specific directories based on how they will be calling a given function.
Personally, I'd tend to suggest option 2 as the best. It is clean. It has only ONE main function that you need to work with. If you want to keep the functions district, put them as separate nested or sub functions inside the main function body. Inside of course, they will have distinct names, based on how they are driven.
OK, so a messy answer, but it should do it. My test function was 'echo'
funcstr='echo'; % string representation of function
Fs=which('-all',funcstr);
for v=1:length(Fs)
if (strcmp(Fs{v}(end-1:end),'.m')) % Don''t move built-ins, they will be shadowed anyway
movefile(Fs{v},[Fs{v} '_BK']);
end
end
for v=1:length(Fs)
if (strcmp(Fs{v}(end-1:end),'.m'))
movefile([Fs{v} '_BK'],Fs{v});
end
try
eval([funcstr '(''stringArg'')']);
break;
catch
if (strcmp(Fs{v}(end-1:end),'.m'))
movefile(Fs{v},[Fs{v} '_BK']);
end
end
end
for w=1:v
if (strcmp(Fs{v}(end-1:end),'.m'))
movefile([Fs{v} '_BK'],Fs{v});
end
end
You can also create a function handle for the shadowed function. The problem is that the first function is higher on the matlab path, but you can circumvent that by (temporarily) changing the current directory.
Although it is not nice imo to change that current directory (actually I'd rather never change it while executing code), it will solve the problem quite easily; especially if you use it in the configuration part of your function with a persistent function handle:
function outputpars = myMainExecFunction(inputpars)
% configuration
persistent shadowfun;
if isempty(shadowfun)
funpath1 = 'C:\........\x\fun';
funpath2 = 'C:\........\y\fun'; % Shadowed
curcd = cd;
cd(funpath2);
shadowfun = #fun;
cd(curcd); % and go back to the original cd
end
outputpars{1} = shadowfun(inputpars); % will use the shadowed function
oupputpars{2} = fun(inputparts); % will use the function highest on the matlab path
end
This problem was also discussed here as a possible solution to this problem.
I believe it actually is the only way to overload a builtin function outside the source directory of the overloading function (eg. you want to run your own sum.m in a directory other than where your sum.m is located.)
EDIT: Old answer no longer good
The run command won't work because its a function, not a script.
Instead, your best approach would be honestly just figure out which of the functions need to be run, get the current dir, change it to the one your function is in, run it, and then change back to your start dir.
This approach, while not perfect, seems MUCH easier to code, to read, and less prone to breaking. And it requires no changing of names or creating extra files or function handles.
I would like to know what's the difference when I write a temporary variable like this (these are just examples):
version1
for each tempEnemy in enemyManager.enemies {
var tempX:int = tempEnemy.x;
}
or this:
version2
for each tempEnemy in enemyManager.enemies {
tempEnemy.oldX = tempEnemy.x;
}
What's wrong and right? Currently I write it like version 2 and I'm not sure if I should change it to version 1. Can someone help me out with this please? I know most developers write like version 1 but I'm a little bit confused because I am totally unaware about version 1. If I use version 1 does that mean that my value is stored explicitly in a temporary variable that is cleared in every cycle?
Also...
Adding the :variableType (int, String, Number etc) aids in code hinting and debugging.
In version 1 the declaration:
var tempX:int
defines a variable that lasts only as long as that iteration of the for (or for-each) loop it's in. Each iteration tempX is defined, given a value from an Enemy object, and at the end it is left for garbage collection.
In version 2, you reference two variables attached to an Enemy object referenced by the temporary variable named tempEnemy.
In both versions the reference to the Enemy object, tempEnemy, is reassigned the next iteration's Enemy object.
Each method has its advantages. From a memory standpoint, version 2 is probably better, since it changes an existing variable over and over rather than creating a new variable that's discarded at the end of each iteration. On the other hand, version 1 doesn't require you to have oldX defined in its class variables, which can often get mucky enough without these sorts of variables.
Best practices with code are based off of (a) working with other programmers, who need to be able to read and understand the code, and (b) leaving a project and coming back to it later, where you'll need to be able to read and understand your own code. For short projects you don't plan on sharing, version 2 is okay (and probably more memory-efficient), but any large project should use something more like version 1.
Another consideration is, are you going to use that variable anywhere other than the function where it is defined(set)? If not, you don't need to store it in the object, which points again to version 1.