To try to understand, I looked for some code on the internet and found the following declaration of what I suppose to be functions, and that I don't understand at all.
sext #(.inwidth(1), .outwidth(32)) scc_sext_i0(
.i0(paw_0_i0_outport0[32]),
.o0(scc_sext_i0_o0));
combine2_wn #(.inwidth0(32), .inwidth1(32)) scc_combine2_wn_i0(
.i0(paw_0_i0_outport0[31 : 0]),
.i1(scc_sext_i0_o0),
.o0(scc_combine2_wn_i0_o0));
combine2_wn #(.inwidth0(32), .inwidth1(32)) scc_combine2_wn_i1(
.i0(scc_combine2_wn_i2_o0[31 : 0]),
.i1(scc_combine2_wn_i2_o0[63 : 32]),
.o0(scc_combine2_wn_i1_o0));
My questions are the following:
Are these really functions mapping?
If yes, they are not defined in any other lower level .v file (and no library is included either in the top-level file). So what is their use?
What does # symbol mean?
What does .inwidth(32) mean? input of 32 bits? (impossible to find on the internet...)
If yes, the combine2_wn blocks should have only 2 inputs, why is there an output mapped each time?
More generally, are these any kind of concatenation functions?
These are most likely module instantiations, not function calls.
You should have a module named sext and another named combine2_wn declared in files somewhere in your Verilog search path.
#() means you are assigning values to parameters inside the named modules.
There is a parameter named inwidth in the sext module. You are assigning it a value of 1.
There are plenty of references on the web. Look at the verilog wiki site.
Related
I wonder why we have to load an ontology, also provide its namespace while querying it? Why loading the ontology is not enough?
To understand my question better, here is a sample code:
g = rdflib.Graph()
g.parse('ppp.owl', format='turtle')
ppp = rdflib.Namespace('http://purl.org/xxx/ont/ppp/')
g.bind('ppp', ppp)
In line 2, we have opened the ontology (ppp.owl), but in line 3 we also provided its namespace. Does namespace show the program how to handle the ontology?
Cheers,
RF
To specify an element over the semantic web you need its URI: Unique Resource Identifier, which is composed of the namespace and the localname. For example, consider Person an RDF class; how would you differentiate the Person DBpedia class http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Person from Person in some other ontology somewhere? you need the namespace http://dbpedia.org/ontology/ and the local name Person. Which both uniquely identify the class.
Now coming back to your specific question, when you query the ontology, you might use multiple namespaces, some namespaces may not be the one of your ontology. You need other namespaces for querying your own ontology, e.g. rdf, rdfs, and owl. As an example, you can rarely write an arbitrary query without rdf:type property, which is included under the rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns> namespace, not your ontology namespace. As a consequence, you need to specify the namespace.
Well, now as you should know why to use a namespace, then we can proceed. Why to repeat the whole string of the namespace each time it is needed? It is nothing more than a prefix string appended to the local names to use in the query, to avoid writing exhaustively the full uri. See the difference between <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> and type.
Edit
As #AKSW says, as a conclusion, there is no need to declare a namespace in order to work with the ontology but it increases the convenience when working quite often with resources whose URI has particular namespace.
Sometimes I accidentally declare variables that have the name of a function.
Here is a constructed example:
max(4:5) % 5
max(1:10)=10*ones(10,1); % oops, should be == instead of =
max(4:5) % [10 10]
At the moment I always find this out the hard way and it especially happens with function names that I don't use frequently.
Is there any way to let matlab give a warning about this? It would be ideal to see this on the right hand side of the screen with the other warnings, but I am open to other suggestions.
Since Matlab allows you to overload built-in functionality, you will not receive any warnings when using existing names.
There are, however, a few tricks to minimize the risk of overloading existing functions:
Use explicitFunctionNames. It is much less likely that there is a function maxIndex instead of max.
Use the "Tab"-key often. Matlab will auto-complete functions on the path (as well as variables that you've declared previously). Thus, if the variable auto-completes, it already exists. In case you don't remember whether it's also a function, hit "F1" to see whether there exists a help page for it.
Use functions rather than scripts, so that "mis-"assigned variables in the workspace won't mess up your code.
I'm pretty sure mlint can also check for that.
Generally I would wrap code into functions as much as possible. That way the range of such an override is limited to the scope of the function - so no lasting problems, besides the accidental assumption of course.
When in doubt, check:
exist max
ans =
5
Looking at help exist, you can see that "max" is a function, and shouldn't be assigned as a variable.
>> help exist
exist Check if variables or functions are defined.
exist('A') returns:
0 if A does not exist
1 if A is a variable in the workspace
2 if A is an M-file on MATLAB's search path. It also returns 2 when
A is the full pathname to a file or when A is the name of an
ordinary file on MATLAB's search path
3 if A is a MEX-file on MATLAB's search path
4 if A is a MDL-file on MATLAB's search path
5 if A is a built-in MATLAB function
6 if A is a P-file on MATLAB's search path
7 if A is a directory
8 if A is a class (exist returns 0 for Java classes if you
start MATLAB with the -nojvm option.)
I'm aware that Common Lisp has different binding environments for functions and variables, but I believe that it also has another binding environment for tagbody labels. Are there even more binding environments than this? If so, then is it fair to categorize Common Lisp as a Lisp-2?
These question are not meant as pedantry or bike-shedding, I only want to gain a better understanding of Common Lisp and hopefully get some pointers into where to dig deeper into its spec.
I'm aware that Common Lisp has different binding environments for
functions and variables,
That would be namespaces, according to the HyperSpec:
namespace n. 1. bindings whose denotations are restricted to a
particular kind. The bindings of names to tags is the tag
namespace.'' 2. any mapping whose domain is a set of names.A
package defines a namespace.''
(Point 1.)
but I believe that it also has another binding environment for tagbody
labels. Are there even more binding environments than this?
Yes, there are more namespaces. I even remember a little snippet exposing most of them, but unfortunately, I can't find it anymore¹. It at least exposed variable, function, tag, and block namespaces, but maybe also types and declarations were included. There is also another SO answer that lists these namespaces.
If so, then is it fair to categorize Common Lisp as a Lisp-2?
In the comments to the above linked answer, Rainer Joswig agrees that the "general debate is about Lisp-1 against Lisp-n".
The "2" might be due to the relative importance of the distinction between value and function slots, or because the objects of the other namespaces aren't first-class objects. For example in the Gabriel/Pitman paper referenced in the other answer:
There is really a larger number of namespaces than just the two that
are discussed here. As we noted earlier, other namespaces include at
least those of blocks and tags; type names and declaration names are
often considered namespaces. Thus, the names Lisp1 and Lisp2, which we
have been using are misleading. The names Lisp5 and Lisp6 might be
more appropriate.
and:
In this paper, there are two namespaces of concern, which we
shall term the "value namespace" and the "function namespace." Other
namespaces include tag names (used by TAGBODY and GO) and block names
(used by BLOCK and RETURN-FROM), but the objects in the location parts
of their bindings are not first-class Lisp objects.
¹) PAIP, p. 837:
(defun f (f)
(block f
(tagbody
f (catch 'f
(if (typep f 'f)
(throw 'f (go f)))
(funcall #'f (get (symbol-value 'f) 'f))))))
In PAIP, Peter Norvig says "Common Lisp has at least seven name spaces" (p. 836).
The seven he lists are:
functions and macros
variables
special variables
data types
label for go statements within a tagbody
a block name for return-from statements within a block
symbols inside a quoted expression
Peter Seibel makes a great point in his comp.lang.lisp post about "compiler" versus "library" namespaces. I think all of Norvig's seven namespaces are "compiler" namespaces.
See for example this old discussion post from comp.lang.lisp:
http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/Lisp/comp.lang.lisp/2004-04/0737.html
Yes - http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/lw51/CLHS/Body/t_symbol.htm#symbol specifies a separate value cell and function cell, consonant with a lisp-2.
There is also a property list, but as there is no context in which a symbol "naturally" refers to its property list, it is not usual to describe CL as a lisp-3 (in fact, I am not aware of any language usually so designated).
I see the terms "declaration," "prototype" and "symbol" thrown around interchangeably a lot when it comes to code like the following:
void MyUndefinedFunction();
The same goes for "definition" and "implementation" for things like this:
void MyClass::MyMethod()
{
// Actual code here.
}
Are there any distinctions between the terms, as with "argument" and "parameter?" Or are they truly synonymous?
Note: I'm not sure if this belongs here or on Programmers, so I posted it on both sites. If anyone has any objections, let me know and I'll delete one.
Unless you run into a purist, they are generally interchangable, except for symbol and prototype (difficult to give absolutes on language-agnostic)
symbol generally refers to a hook point for linking 2 bits of code together, such as a library entry point, or a target for resolving static linking
prototype generally refers to a definition of what a function/method looks like (arguments, return type, name, various types of visibility), but doesn't include an implementation.
You missed function vs. method, but my definition is:
function a callable bit of code that isn't bound to an object
method a callable bit of code in an object's namespace. Generally implemented by the compiler as a function that takes the object instance as it's first argument.
Possibly parameter hints at limiting scope, and therefore read-only.
Note If you ask a purist, you're more likely to have an argument than a parameter.
The difference between declaration and prototype is mainly in C, where the following is a non-prototype declaration:
int foo();
Note that this is different from:
int foo(void);
The latter is a prototype for a function taking no arguments, while the former is a declaration for a function whose argument types are not specified in the declaration. This can actually be useful to avoid function-pointer-type casts with certain uses of function pointers, but it's very easy to mess up, and messing it up invokes undefined behavior. Many C programmers consider non-prototype declarations harmful, and gcc has a warning option to flag them.
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