I'm trying to program a numerical method in my ti-89, in TI-Basic language, the problem is that when I overwrite the variable inside the loop it doesn't do it, I'm new to this language and I don't know if I'm omitting some detail behind
Item()
prgm
Input "f(x)",a //call the function in text mode
define s(z,t) = a //convert the text into a function
local xa,ya //declare local variables
x->xa //assign values that I already have saved to local variables
y->ya
local i
For i,1,10
s(xa,ya)->xa //evaluate the function, and I have to rewrite the first parameter
EndFor
EndPrgm
I'm not entirely sure what's causing the problem, but I would try using a list to store the data instead if that is all there is. You can rewrite the list and clear it easily. You can store strings in these lists as well. Lists can be edited at all times, which will fix your problem. Although this solution might not be as efficient, it should work. I don't have my calculator with me so I can't test it, sorry :(. These two functions below add things to the list and clear the list.
L1(x,y,z)
ClrList L1
Good luck! TI-Basic can be difficult sometimes
Related
I'm trying to optimize a given object oriented code in matlab. It is an economical model and consists of a Market and Agents. The time consuming part is to update certain attributes of all Agents during each timestep which is implemented in a for loop.
However, I fail to vectorize the object oriented code.
Here is an example (Note, the second thing that slows down the code so far is the fact, that new entries are attached to the end of the vector. I'm aware of that and will fix that also):
for i=1:length(obj.traders)
obj.traders(i).update(obj.Price,obj.Sentiment(end),obj.h);
end
Where update looks like
function obj=update(obj,price,s,h)
obj.pos(end+1)=obj.p;
obj.wealth(end+1)=obj.w(1,1,1);
obj.g(end+1)=s;
obj.price=price;
obj.Update_pos(sentiment,h);
if (obj.c)
obj.Switch_Pos;
end
...
My first idea was to try something like
obj.traders(:).update(obj.Price,obj.Sentiment(end),obj.h);
Which didn't work. If someone has any suggestions how to vectorize this code, while keeping the object oriented implementation, I would be very happy.
I cannot provide a complete solution as this depends on the details of your implementation, but here are some tips which you could use to improve your code:
Remembering that a MATLAB object generally behaves like a struct, assignment of a constant value to a field can be done using [obj.field] =​deal(val); e.g.:
[obj.trader.price] = deal(obj.Price);
This can also be extended to non-constant RHS, using cell, like so:
[aStruct.(fieldNamesCell{idx})] = deal(valueCell{:}); %// or deal(numericVector(:));
To improve the update function, I would suggest making several lines where you create the RHS vectors\cells followed by "simultaneous" assignment to all relevant fields of the objects in the array.
Other than that consider:
setfield: s = setfield(s,{sIndx1,...,sIndxM},'field',{fIndx1,...,fIndxN},value);
structfun:
s = structfun(#(x)x(1:3), s, 'UniformOutput', false, 'ErrorHandler', #errfn);
"A loop-based solution can be flexible and easily readable".
P.S.
On a side note, I'd suggest you name the obj in your functions according to the class name, which would make it more readable to others, i.e.:
function obj=update(obj,price,s,h) => function traderObj=update(traderObj,price,s,h)
I have this parameter as an array. The array is big, 100 cells. It is a parameter that can be initiated in omnet.ini file. The cells with even numbers should get value A and odd numbers should get value B. How can I do this in an automated manner?
Is there a way besides having all odd and even indices initiated one by one manually?
Wildcards can be useful but I do not know how to use them to separate odd and even indices.
Thanks.
You can access the actual module index with the index operator. Combining this with the conditional operator ?: you can easily define the value:
**.myModule[*].myParameter = index % 2 == 0 ? "A" : "B"
I'm not aware of any feature like this. There are a number of work-arounds you could use:
Provide two parameters and select the correct one in code
Use the volatile keyword (probably not appropriate here)
Put the entire thing in your .ini file
I'd personally implement the first approach, that way you can use the wildcard to pass both parameters ([*].myNode.parameterEven and [*].myNode.parameterUneven) and then set the correct values in your array in a for loop.
However, you could also use the volatile keyword in your NED file, see the manual for more details. However, this approach mostly works well if you have different parameters depending on which node you are assigning it to. For this case I think the first approach is better.
The last alternative is just putting the entire thing in your .ini file, which may be useful if you want to parameterize the array later.
It has been a while since I've used Mathematica, and I looked all throughout the help menu. I think one problem I'm having is that I do not know what exactly to look up. I have a block of code, with things like appending lists and doing basic math, that I want to define as a single variable.
My goal is to loop through a sequence and when needed I wanted to call a block of code that I will be using several times throughout the loop. I am guessing I should just put it all in a loop anyway, but I would like to be able to define it all as one function.
It seems like this should be an easy and straightforward procedure. Am I missing something simple?
This is the basic format for a function definition in Mathematica.
myFunc[par1_,par2_]:=Module[{localVar1,localVar2},
statement1; statement2; returnStatement ]
Your question is not entirely clear, but I interpret that you want something like this:
facRand[] :=
({b, x} = Last#FactorInteger[RandomInteger[1*^12]]; Print[b])
Now every time facRand[] is called a new random integer is factored, global variables b and x are assigned, and the value of b is printed. This could also be done with Function:
Clear[facRand]
facRand =
({b, x} = Last#FactorInteger[RandomInteger[1*^12]]; Print[b]) &
This is also called with facRand[]. This form is standard, and allows addressing or passing the symbol facRand without triggering evaluation.
I'm building some relatively simple functions in PROLOG that take one input and one output. For simplicity, something like
func(List, Item, [Item | List]).
Now, I've got code that will call several of these functions in a row and pass the result on. The issue is that I have to keep creating new variable names for all of the outputs.
someOtherFunc(List, Item) :-
func(List, Item, Output1),
doSomething(Output1).
The issue here is that I actually have several func and several doSomething and would really appreciate not having to bind an Output1 variable explicitly. Is there any way to achieve this?
I'm not sure about what you're asking, but first of all please note that those are not functions, but predicates. This is a totally different programming paradigm. Variables are not "boxes" where you put in and out some data: they're closer to the mathematical meaning of variable, since once you bind them to some constraints on their values it's forever.
To go back to your question, the answer is no, you can't avoid binding some Output1 like that. Sometimes you can put in an underscore to tell prolog you just don't care about that value, but doing so you lose the ability to make use of that particular value. In your example you would like to do something like this (in a imperative pseudocode):
var list = ..., item = ...;
doSomething(func(list, item));
There's no other way in prolog as far as I know, you just have to use intermediate variables as you did. The only improvement I can suggest, is to choose very carefully predicates and variables names.
func1(Input1, Input2) :-
func2(Input1, Input2, Output1),
useFun(Output1, Output2).
/* Output2 the result I obtain from the function useFun */
Something like this (yes, this doesn't deal with some edge cases - that's not the point):
int CountDigits(int num) {
int count = 1;
while (num >= 10) {
count++;
num /= 10;
}
return count;
}
What's your opinion about this? That is, using function arguments as local variables.
Both are placed on the stack, and pretty much identical performance wise, I'm wondering about the best-practices aspects of this.
I feel like an idiot when I add an additional and quite redundant line to that function consisting of int numCopy = num, however it does bug me.
What do you think? Should this be avoided?
As a general rule, I wouldn't use a function parameter as a local processing variable, i.e. I treat function parameters as read-only.
In my mind, intuitively understandabie code is paramount for maintainability, and modifying a function parameter to use as a local processing variable tends to run counter to that goal. I have come to expect that a parameter will have the same value in the middle and bottom of a method as it does at the top. Plus, an aptly-named local processing variable may improve understandability.
Still, as #Stewart says, this rule is more or less important depending on the length and complexity of the function. For short simple functions like the one you show, simply using the parameter itself may be easier to understand than introducing a new local variable (very subjective).
Nevertheless, if I were to write something as simple as countDigits(), I'd tend to use a remainingBalance local processing variable in lieu of modifying the num parameter as part of local processing - just seems clearer to me.
Sometimes, I will modify a local parameter at the beginning of a method to normalize the parameter:
void saveName(String name) {
name = (name != null ? name.trim() : "");
...
}
I rationalize that this is okay because:
a. it is easy to see at the top of the method,
b. the parameter maintains its the original conceptual intent, and
c. the parameter is stable for the rest of the method
Then again, half the time, I'm just as apt to use a local variable anyway, just to get a couple of extra finals in there (okay, that's a bad reason, but I like final):
void saveName(final String name) {
final String normalizedName = (name != null ? name.trim() : "");
...
}
If, 99% of the time, the code leaves function parameters unmodified (i.e. mutating parameters are unintuitive or unexpected for this code base) , then, during that other 1% of the time, dropping a quick comment about a mutating parameter at the top of a long/complex function could be a big boon to understandability:
int CountDigits(int num) {
// num is consumed
int count = 1;
while (num >= 10) {
count++;
num /= 10;
}
return count;
}
P.S. :-)
parameters vs arguments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameter_(computer_science)#Parameters_and_arguments
These two terms are sometimes loosely used interchangeably; in particular, "argument" is sometimes used in place of "parameter". Nevertheless, there is a difference. Properly, parameters appear in procedure definitions; arguments appear in procedure calls.
So,
int foo(int bar)
bar is a parameter.
int x = 5
int y = foo(x)
The value of x is the argument for the bar parameter.
It always feels a little funny to me when I do this, but that's not really a good reason to avoid it.
One reason you might potentially want to avoid it is for debugging purposes. Being able to tell the difference between "scratchpad" variables and the input to the function can be very useful when you're halfway through debugging.
I can't say it's something that comes up very often in my experience - and often you can find that it's worth introducing another variable just for the sake of having a different name, but if the code which is otherwise cleanest ends up changing the value of the variable, then so be it.
One situation where this can come up and be entirely reasonable is where you've got some value meaning "use the default" (typically a null reference in a language like Java or C#). In that case I think it's entirely reasonable to modify the value of the parameter to the "real" default value. This is particularly useful in C# 4 where you can have optional parameters, but the default value has to be a constant:
For example:
public static void WriteText(string file, string text, Encoding encoding = null)
{
// Null means "use the default" which we would document to be UTF-8
encoding = encoding ?? Encoding.UTF8;
// Rest of code here
}
About C and C++:
My opinion is that using the parameter as a local variable of the function is fine because it is a local variable already. Why then not use it as such?
I feel silly too when copying the parameter into a new local variable just to have a modifiable variable to work with.
But I think this is pretty much a personal opinion. Do it as you like. If you feel sill copying the parameter just because of this, it indicates your personality doesn't like it and then you shouldn't do it.
If I don't need a copy of the original value, I don't declare a new variable.
IMO I don't think mutating the parameter values is a bad practice in general,
it depends on how you're going to use it in your code.
My team coding standard recommends against this because it can get out of hand. To my mind for a function like the one you show, it doesn't hurt because everyone can see what is going on. The problem is that with time functions get longer, and they get bug fixes in them. As soon as a function is more than one screen full of code, this starts to get confusing which is why our coding standard bans it.
The compiler ought to be able to get rid of the redundant variable quite easily, so it has no efficiency impact. It is probably just between you and your code reviewer whether this is OK or not.
I would generally not change the parameter value within the function. If at some point later in the function you need to refer to the original value, you still have it. in your simple case, there is no problem, but if you add more code later, you may refer to 'num' without realizing it has been changed.
The code needs to be as self sufficient as possible. What I mean by that is you now have a dependency on what is being passed in as part of your algorithm. If another member of your team decides to change this to a pass by reference then you might have big problems.
The best practice is definitely to copy the inbound parameters if you expect them to be immutable.
I typically don't modify function parameters, unless they're pointers, in which case I might alter the value that's pointed to.
I think the best-practices of this varies by language. For example, in Perl you can localize any variable or even part of a variable to a local scope, so that changing it in that scope will not have any affect outside of it:
sub my_function
{
my ($arg1, $arg2) = #_; # get the local variables off the stack
local $arg1; # changing $arg1 here will not be visible outside this scope
$arg1++;
local $arg2->{key1}; # only the key1 portion of the hashref referenced by $arg2 is localized
$arg2->{key1}->{key2} = 'foo'; # this change is not visible outside the function
}
Occasionally I have been bitten by forgetting to localize a data structure that was passed by reference to a function, that I changed inside the function. Conversely, I have also returned a data structure as a function result that was shared among multiple systems and the caller then proceeded to change the data by mistake, affecting these other systems in a difficult-to-trace problem usually called action at a distance. The best thing to do here would be to make a clone of the data before returning it*, or make it read-only**.
* In Perl, see the function dclone() in the built-in Storable module.
** In Perl, see lock_hash() or lock_hash_ref() in the built-in Hash::Util module).