Can you suggest a precise definition for a 'value' within the context of programming without reference to specific encoding techniques or particular languages or architectures?
[Previous question text, for discussion reference: "What is value in programming? How to define this word precisely?"]
I just happened to be glancing through Pierce's "Types and Programming Languages" - he slips a reasonably precise definition of "value" in a programming context into the text:
[...] defines a subset of terms, called values, that are possible final results of evaluation
This seems like a rather tidy definition - i.e., we take the set of all possible terms, and the ones that can possibly be left over after all evaluation has taken place are values.
Based on the ongoing comments about "bits" being an unacceptable definition, I think this one is a little better (although possibly still flawed):
A value is anything representable on a piece of possibly-infinite Turing machine tape.
Edit: I'm refining this some more.
A value is a member of the set of possible interpretations of any possibly-infinite sequence of symbols.
That is equivalent to the earlier definition based on Turing machine tape, but it actually generalises better.
Here, I'll take a shot: A value is a piece of stored information (in the information-theoretical sense) that can be manipulated by the computer.
(I won't say that a value has meaning; a random number in a register may have no meaning, but it's still a value.)
In short, a value is some assigned meaning to a variable (the object containing the value)
For example type=boolean; name=help; variable=a storage location; value=what is stored in that location;
Further break down:
X = 2; where X is a variable while 2 is the value stored in X.
Have you checked the article in wikipedia?
In computer science, a value is a sequence of bits that is interpreted according to some data type. It is possible for the same sequence of bits to have different values, depending on the type used to interpret its meaning. For instance, the value could be an integer or floating point value, or a string.
Read the Wiki
Value = Value is what we call the "contents" that was stored in the variable
Variables = containers for storing data values
Example: Think of a folder named "Movies"(Variables) and inside of it are it contents which are namely; Pirates of the Carribean, Fantastic Beast, and Lala land, (this in turn is what we now call it's Values )
Related
Are there any rules that you follow to determine the order of function arguments? For example, float pow(float x, float exponent) vs float pow(float exponent, float x). For concreteness, C++ could be used, but the question is valid for all programming languages.
My main concern is from the usability point of view, not runtime performance.
Edit:
Some possible bases for ordering could be:
Inputs versus Output
The way a "formula" is usually written, i.e., arguments from left-to-write.
Specificity to the argument to the context of the function, i.e., whether it is a "general" argument, e.g., a singleton object of the system, or specific.
In the example you cite, I think the order was decided on the basis of the mathematical notation xexponent, in which the base is written before the exponent and becomes the left parameter.
I'm not aware of any really sound general principle other than to try to imagine what your users will expect and/or easily remember. People aren't even wholly agreed whether you should write (source, destination) or (destination, source) when copying (compare std::copy with std::memcpy), although I'm pretty sure that the former is now much more common.
There are a whole lot of general conventions, though, followed to different extents by different people:
if the function is considered primarly to act upon a particular object, put it first
parameters that are considered to "configure" the operation of the function come after parameters that are considered the main subject of the function.
out-params come last (but I suspect some people follow the reverse)
To some extent it doesn't really matter -- namely the extent to which your users have IDEs that tell them the parameter order as they type the function name.
I understand what a datatype is (intuitively). But I need the formal definition. I don't understand if it is a set or it's the names 'int' 'float' etc. The formal definition found on wikipedia is confusing.
In computer programming, a data type is a classification identifying one of various types of data, such as floating-point, integer, or Boolean, that determines the possible values for that type; the operations that can be done on values of that type; the meaning of the data; and the way values of that type can be stored.
Can anyone help me with that?
Yep. What that's saying is that a data type has three pieces:
The various possible values. So, for example, an eight bit signed integer might have -127..128. This of that as a set of values V.
The operations: so an 8-bit signed integer might have +, -, * (multiply), and / (divide). The full definition would define those as functions from V into V, or possible as a function from V into float for division.
The way it's stored -- I sort of gave it away when I said "eight bit signed integer". The other detail is that I'm assuming a specific representation by the way I showed the range of values.
You might, if you're into object oriented programming, notice that this is very much like the definition of a class, which is defined by the storage used by each object, adn the methods of the class. Providing those parts for some arbitrary thing, but not inheritance rules, gives you what's called an abstract data type.
Update
#Appy, there's some room for differences in the formalities. I was a little subtle because it was late and I was suddenly uncertain if I'd assumed one's complement or two's complement -- of course it's two's complement. So interpretation is included in my description. Abstractly, though, you'd say it is a algebraic structure T=(V,O) where V is a set of values, O a set of functions from V into some arbitrary type -- remember '==' for example will be a function eq:V × V → {0,1} so you can't expect every operation to be into V.
I can define it as a classification of a particular type of information. It is easy for humans to distinguish between different types of data. We can usually tell at a glance whether a number is a percentage, a time, or an amount of money. We do this through special symbols %, :, and $.
Basically it's the concept that I am sure you grock. For computers however a data type is defined and has various associated attributes, like size, like a definition keywork (sometimes), the values it can take (numbers or characters for example) and operations that can be done on it like add subtract for numbers and append on string or compare on a character, etc. These differ from language to language and even from environment to env. (16 - 32 bit ints/ 32 - 64 envs./ etc).
If there is anything I am missing or needs refining please ask as this is fairly open ended.
The terms do appear to be defined differently, but I've always thought of one implying the other; I can't think of any case when an expression is referentially transparent but not pure, or vice-versa.
Wikipedia maintains separate articles for these concepts and says:
From Referential transparency:
If all functions involved in the
expression are pure functions, then
the expression is referentially
transparent. Also, some impure
functions can be included in the
expression if their values are
discarded and their side effects are
insignificant.
From Pure expressions:
Pure functions are required to
construct pure expressions. [...] Pure
expressions are often referred to as
being referentially transparent.
I find these statements confusing. If the side effects from a so-called "impure function" are insignificant enough to allow not performing them (i.e. replace a call to such a function with its value) without materially changing the program, it's the same as if it were pure in the first place, isn't it?
Is there a simpler way to understand the differences between a pure expression and a referentially transparent one, if any? If there is a difference, an example expression that clearly demonstrates it would be appreciated.
If I gather in one place any three theorists of my acquaintance, at least two of them disagree on the meaning of the term "referential transparency." And when I was a young student, a mentor of mine gave me a paper explaining that even if you consider only the professional literature, the phrase "referentially transparent" is used to mean at least three different things. (Unfortunately that paper is somewhere in a box of reprints that have yet to be scanned. I searched Google Scholar for it but I had no success.)
I cannot inform you, but I can advise you to give up: Because even the tiny cadre of pointy-headed language theorists can't agree on what it means, the term "referentially transparent" is not useful. So don't use it.
P.S. On any topic to do with the semantics of programming languages, Wikipedia is unreliable. I have given up trying to fix it; the Wikipedian process seems to regard change and popular voting over stability and accuracy.
All pure functions are necessarily referentially transparent. Since, by definition, they cannot access anything other than what they are passed, their result must be fully determined by their arguments.
However, it is possible to have referentially transparent functions which are not pure. I can write a function which is given an int i, then generates a random number r, subtracts r from itself and places it in s, then returns i - s. Clearly this function is impure, because it is generating random numbers. However, it is referentially transparent. In this case, the example is silly and contrived. However, in, e.g., Haskell, the id function is of type a - > a whereas my stupidId function would be of type a -> IO a indicating that it makes use of side effects. When a programmer can guarantee through means of an external proof that their function is actually referentially transparent, then they can use unsafePerformIO to strip the IO back away from the type.
I'm somewhat unsure of the answer I give here, but surely somebody will point us in some direction. :-)
"Purity" is generally considered to mean "lack of side-effects". An expression is said to be pure if its evaluation lacks side-effects. What's a side-effect then? In a purely functional language, side-effect is anything that doesn't go by the simple beta-rule (the rule that to evaluate function application is the same as to substitute actual parameter for all free occurrences of the formal parameter).
For example, in a functional language with linear (or uniqueness, this distinction shouldn't bother at this moment) types some (controlled) mutation is allowed.
So I guess we have sorted out what "purity" and "side-effects" might be.
Referential transparency (according to the Wikipedia article you cited) means that variable can be replaced by the expression it denotes (abbreviates, stands for) without changing the meaning of the program at hand (btw, this is also a hard question to tackle, and I won't attempt to do so here). So, "purity" and "referential transparency" are indeed different things: "purity" is a property of some expression roughly means "doesn't produce side-effects when executed" whereas "referential transparency" is a property relating variable and expression that it stands for and means "variable can be replaced with what it denotes".
Hopefully this helps.
These slides from one ACCU2015 talk have a great summary on the topic of referential transparency.
From one of the slides:
A language is referentially transparent if (a)
every subexpression can be replaced by any other
that’s equal to it in value and (b) all occurrences of
an expression within a given context yield the
same value.
You can have, for instance, a function that logs its computation to the program standard output (so, it won't be a pure function), but you can replace calls for this function by a similar function that doesn't log its computation. Therefore, this function have the referential transparency property. But... the above definition is about languages, not expressions, as the slides emphasize.
[...] it's the same as if it were pure in the first place, isn't it?
From the definitions we have, no, it is not.
Is there a simpler way to understand the differences between a pure expression and a referentially transparent one, if any?
Try the slides I mentioned above.
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose
from.
Andrew S. Tanenbaum.
...along with definitions of referential transparency:
from page 176 of Functional programming with Miranda by Ian Holyer:
8.1 Values and Behaviours
The most important property of the semantics of a pure functional language is that the declarative and operational views of the language coincide exactly, in the following way:
Every expression denotes a value, and there are valuescorresponding to all possible program behaviours. Thebehaviour produced by an expression in any context is completely determined by its value, and vice versa.
This principle, which is usually rather opaquely called referential transparency, can also be pictured in the following way:
and from Nondeterminism with Referential Transparency in Functional Programming Languages by F. Warren Burton:
[...] the property that an expression always has the same value in the same environment [...]
...for various other definitions, see Referential Transparency, Definiteness and Unfoldability by Harald Søndergaard and Peter Sestoft.
Instead, we'll begin with the concept of "purity". For the three of you who didn't know it already, the computer or device you're reading this on is a solid-state Turing machine, a model of computing intrinsically connected with effects. So every program, functional or otherwise, needs to use those effects To Get Things DoneTM.
What does this mean for purity? At the assembly-language level, which is the domain of the CPU, all programs are impure. If you're writing a program in assembly language, you're the one who is micro-managing the interplay between all those effects - and it's really tedious!
Most of the time, you're just instructing the CPU to move data around in the computer's memory, which only changes the contents of individual memory locations - nothing to see there! It's only when your instructions direct the CPU to e.g. write to video memory, that you observe a visible change (text appearing on the screen).
For our purposes here, we'll split effects into two coarse categories:
those involving I/O devices like screens, speakers, printers, VR-headsets, keyboards, mice, etc; commonly known as observable effects.
and the rest, which only ever change the contents of memory.
In this situation, purity just means the absence of those observable effects, the ones which cause a visible change to the environment of the running program, maybe even its host computer. It is definitely not the absence of all effects, otherwise we would have to replace our solid-state Turing machines!
Now for the question of 42 life, the Universe and everything what exactly is meant by the term "referential transparency" - instead of herding cats trying to bring theorists into agreement, let's just try to find the original meaning given to the term. Fortunately for us, the term frequently appears in the context of I/O in Haskell - we only need a relevant article...here's one: from the first page of Owen Stephen's Approaches to Functional I/O:
Referential transparency refers to the ability to replace a sub-expression with one of equal value, without changing the value of the outer expression. Originating from Quine the term was introduced to Computer Science by Strachey.
Following the references:
From page 9 of 39 in Christopher Strachey's Fundamental Concepts in Programming Languages:
One of the most useful properties of expressions is that called by Quine referential transparency. In essence this means that if we wish to find the value of an expression which contains a sub-expression, the only thing we need to know about the sub-expression is its value. Any other features of the sub-expression, such as its internal structure, the number and nature of its components, the order in which they are evaluated or the colour of the ink in which they are written, are irrelevant to the value of the main expression.
From page 163 of 314 in Willard Van Ormond Quine's Word and Object:
[...] Quotation, which thus interrupts the referential force of a term, may be said to fail of referential transparency2. [...] I call a mode of confinement Φ referentially transparent if, whenever an occurrence of a singular term t is purely referential in a term or sentence ψ(t), it is purely referential also in the containing term or sentence Φ(ψ(t)).
with the footnote:
2 The term is from Whitehead and Russell, 2d ed., vol. 1, p. 665.
Following that reference:
From page 709 of 719 in Principa Mathematica by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell:
When an assertion occurs, it is made by means of a particular fact, which is an instance of the proposition asserted. But this particular fact is, so to speak, "transparent"; nothing is said about it, bit by means of it something is said about something else. It is the "transparent" quality which belongs to propositions as they occur in truth-functions.
Let's try to bring all that together:
Whitehead and Russell introduce the term "transparent";
Quine then defines the qualified term "referential transparency";
Strachey then adapts Quine's definition in defining the basics of programming languages.
So it's a choice between Quine's original or Strachey's adapted definition. You can try translating Quine's definition for yourself if you like - everyone who's ever contested the definition of "purely functional" might even enjoy the chance to debate something different like what "mode of containment" and "purely referential" really means...have fun! The rest of us will just accept that Strachey's definition is a little vague ("In essence [...]") and continue on:
One useful property of expressions is referential transparency. In essence this means that if we wish to find the value of an expression which contains a sub-expression,
the only thing we need to know about the sub-expression is its value. Any other features of the sub-expression, such as its internal structure, the number and nature of
its components, the order in which they are evaluated or the colour of the ink in which they are written, are irrelevant to the value of the main expression.
(emphasis by me.)
Regarding that description ("that if we wish to find the value of [...]"), a similar, but more concise statement is given by Peter Landin in The Next 700 Programming Languages:
the thing an expression denotes, i.e., its "value", depends only on the values of its sub-expressions, not on other properties of them.
Thus:
One useful property of expressions is referential transparency. In essence this means the thing an expression denotes, i.e., its "value", depends only on the values of its sub-expressions, not on other properties of them.
Strachey provides some examples:
(page 12 of 39)
We tend to assume automatically that the symbol x in an expression such as 3x2 + 2x + 17 stands for the same thing (or has the same value) on each occasion it occurs. This is the most important consequence of referential transparency and it is only in virtue of this property that we can use the where-clauses or λ-expressions described in the last section.
(and on page 16)
When the function is used (or called or applied) we write f[ε] where ε can be an expression. If we are using a referentially transparent language all we require to know about the expression ε in order to evaluate f[ε] is its value.
So referential transparency, by Strachey's original definition, implies purity - in the absence of an order of evaluation, observable and other effects are practically useless...
I'll quote John Mitchell Concept in programming language. He defines pure functional language has to pass declarative language test which is free from side-effects or lack of side effects.
"Within the scope of specific deceleration of x1,...,xn , all occurrence of an expression e containing only variables x1,...,xn have the same value."
In linguistics a name or noun phrase is considered referentially transparent if it may be replaced with the another noun phrase with same referent without changing the meaning of the sentence it contains.
Which in 1st case holds but in 2nd case it gets too weird.
Case 1:
"I saw Walter get into his new car."
And if Walter own a Centro then we could replace that in the given sentence as:
"I saw Walter get into his Centro"
Contrary to first :
Case #2 : He was called William Rufus because of his read beard.
Rufus means somewhat red and reference was to William IV of England.
"He was called William IV because of his read beard." looks too awkward.
Traditional way to say is, a language is referentially transparent if we may replace one expression with another of equal value anywhere in the program without changing the meaning of the program.
So, referential transparency is a property of pure functional language.
And if your program is free from side effects then this property will hold.
So give it up is awesome advice but get it on might also look good in this context.
Pure functions are those that return the same value on every call, and do not have side effects.
Referential transparency means that you can replace a bound variable with its value and still receive the same output.
Both pure and referentially transparent:
def f1(x):
t1 = 3 * x
t2 = 6
return t1 + t2
Why is this pure?
Because it is a function of only the input x and has no side-effects.
Why is this referentially transparent?
You could replace t1 and t2 in f1 with their respective right hand sides in the return statement, as follows
def f2(x):
return 3 * x + 6
and f2 will still always return the same result as f1 in every case.
Pure, but not referentially transparent:
Let's modify f1 as follows:
def f3(x):
t1 = 3 * x
t2 = 6
x = 10
return t1 + t2
Let us try the same trick again by replacing t1 and t2 with their right hand sides, and see if it is an equivalent definition of f3.
def f4(x):
x = 10
return 3 * x + 6
We can easily observe that f3 and f4 are not equivalent on replacing variables with their right hand sides / values. f3(1) would return 9 and f4(1) would return 36.
Referentially transparent, but not pure:
Simply modifying f1 to receive a non-local value of x, as follows:
def f5:
global x
t1 = 3 * x
t2 = 6
return t1 + t2
Performing the same replacement exercise from before shows that f5 is still referentially transparent. However, it is not pure because it is not a function of only the arguments passed to it.
Observing carefully, the reason we lose referential transparency moving from f3 to f4 is that x is modified. In the general case, making a variable final (or those familiar with Scala, using vals instead of vars) and using immutable objects can help keep a function referentially transparent. This makes them more like variables in the algebraic or mathematical sense, thus lending themselves better to formal verification.
There's a computer science term for this that escapes my head, one of those words that ends with "-icity".
It means something like a given action will always produce the same result, IE there won't be any hysteresis, or the action will not alter the functioning of the system...
Ring a bell, anyone? Thanks.
Apologies for the tagging, I'm only tagging it Java b/c I learned about this in a Java class back in school and I figure that crowd tends to have more CS background...
This could mean two different things:
deterministic - meaning that given the same initial state, the same operation (with exactly the same data) will always produce the same resulting state (and optional output.) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_algorithm
i.e. same action has the same effect - assuming you start from the same place in the same system. (Nothing random about it, nothing fed in from the outside that could effect the result...)
idempotent - meaning applying a function to a value once e.g. f(x) = v produces the same result as applying the function multiple times e.g. f(f(f(x))) = v - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idempotence
i.e. one or more function applications yields the same value given the same initial value
you mean idempotent ??
Referential transparency is also used in some CS circles.
Nullipotent?
deterministic ,.,-=
Are you looking for invariant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_%28computer_science%29
In computer science, a predicate is
called an invariant to a sequence of
operations if the predicate always
evaluates at the end of the sequence
to the same value as before starting
the sequence.
side effect-free?
In math, a function 'f' is idempotent if multiple applications do not change the result.
you mean idempotence?
or the action will not alter the functioning of the system...
Are you looking for ‘idempotence’?
The "ends with -icity" part of your question makes me think you might be looking for monotonicity, even though it does not quite match description/definition of the word. From the Wikipedia article:
In mathematics, a monotonic function (or monotone function) is a function which preserves the given order. This concept first arose in calculus, and was later generalized to the more abstract setting of order theory.
In the following illustrations (also borrowed from the Wikipedia article) three functions are drawn:
A:
B:
C:
A and B and both monotonic (increasing and decreasing respectively), while C is not monotonic.
You mean an atomic block of code?
The A in ACID.
Atomicity - states that database modifications must follow an “all or nothing” rule. Each transaction is said to be “atomic.” If one part of the transaction fails, the entire transaction fails.
It sounds like what you're describing would be a memoryless function. Although the term memorylessness is usually used for stochastic distributions, I don't quite remember if it has a programming equivalent...
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.