Need help understanding this implementation of tetris - bash

I am trying to understand this implementation of Tetris.
I have a few questions.
In update_score function,
if (( score > LEVEL_UP * level)) ; then # if level should be increased
((level++)) # increment level
pkill -SIGUSR1 -f "/bin/bash $0"
What is the use of having a separate process at all for adjusting the delay? Why use SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2?
In the draw_piece function, why multiply by 8? I don't understand how the conversion is taking place or how the concept of "rotation" is implemented here.
for ((i = 0; i < 8; i += 2)) {
# relative coordinates are retrieved based on orientation and added to absolute coordinates
((x = $1 + ${piece[$3]:$((i + $4 * 8 + 1)):1} * 2))
((y = $2 + ${piece[$3]:$((i + $4 * 8)):1}))
xyprint $x $y "$5"
...
}
Nor do I understand the syntax involving : here.
In clear_next, why is draw_next ${filled_cell//?/ } necessary instead of just ${filled_cell}? What do the // signify?

I'm a beginner to shell scripting and programming in general and I have been trying to understand this implementation of Tetris [in shell]
Somehow, I suspect you could have found easier programs to start with.
What is the use of having a separate process at all for adjusting the delay? Why use [SIGUSR1] and [SIGUSR2]?
I don't think there's a separate process for adjusting the delay, but for implementing the timer. The timer must run even while the program is waiting for the player to give input, and if the shell functions don't give any way of having a timeout on read, that must be exported to another process. So then you get what there is in the end of script, a divide into the timer, the user input handler, and the actual game logic, with output from the first two going to the last one:
(ticker & reader) | (controller)
Bash's read does have the -t flag for timeout, so if it was implemented in Bash, you might not need the extra timer process. However, putting the timer in an external process also makes it independent of the user input, the read timeout would instead reset every time user hits a button. Working around that would require some way of accurately determining the elapsed time (or using a really short timeout on read and counting the ticks).
SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2 are just "innocent" signals that don't have a meaning to the system at large, so they can be used here. Of course you could use others, but catching SIGINT or SIGHUP would annoy users if they wanted to stop the game.
In the draw_piece function, why multiply by 8?
((x = $1 + ${piece[$3]:$((i + $4 * 8 + 1)):1} * 2))
The piece array contains the different shapes and orientations of the pieces. A piece is 4 squares large, each square needs two coordinates, so we get 8 numbers per piece/orientation. For, example, the string for the S piece is 0001111201101120, so it has two orientations:
yx yx yx yx yx yx yx yx
00 01 11 12 01 10 11 20
And the piece looks something like this:
012 012
0 xx. 0 .x.
1 .xx 1 xx.
2 ... 2 x..
The ${variable:position:length} notation picks a substring from the given variable, so the program gets the single digits it needs from the bigger string. That's a somewhat weird way of implementing an array.
In clear_next, why is draw_next ${filled_cell//?/ } necessary ...? What do the // signify?
The ${parameter/foo/bar} construct is a pattern replacement (See e.g. Bash's manual on parameter expansion, look for "replace"). Whatever matches foo in the value of parameter, is replaced with bar, and the result is expanded. With a double slash, all matches are replaced, with a single slash, only the first. The question mark matches any character as with filename globs, so that effectively makes a string of spaces as long as the original string.
For example:
$ str="hallo hallo"
$ echo "${str/a/e}"
hello hallo
$ echo "${str//a/e}"
hello hello
$ str="abc"
$ echo "x${str//?/ }x"
x x

Related

Using awk to interpolate data based on if statement

so I am trying to automate a data collection process by using awk to search the file for a certain pattern and plug values into the linear interpolation formula. The data in question tracks time versus position, and I need to interpolate the time at which position equals zero. Example:
100 0.5
200 0.2
300 -0.3
400 -0.7
Then, my interpolation looks like this:
interpolated_time = 200 + (0 - 0.2) * (300 - 200) / (-0.3 - 0.2)
I am going to write the script in bash and use bc calculator for the arithmetic. However, I am inexperienced with using awk and cannot figure out how to correctly search the file.
I want to do something like
awk '{if ($2 > 0) #add another statement to test if $2 < 0 on next line#}'
# If test is successful, store entries in variables or an array
The interpolation may need to be performed multiple times in one file. I may need to output all values in question to an array, and then input the paired indexes into the interpolation formula. (i.e. indices [1,2] [3,4] [5,6] are paired together for separate interpolations)
I know that awk works on a line-by-line test loop, but I don't know if there is a way to incorporate the previous or next line in the test (perhaps something like
next
or
getline
?)
Any suggestions or comments would be greatly appreciated!
This will give you the result 240
awk '{if(p2>0 && $2<0) print p1-p2*($1-p1)/($2-p2); p1=$1; p2=$2}'
doesn't handle if 0 is already in the data set and assumes transition is from positive to negative.

How do I make a function use the altered version of a list in Mathematica?

I want to make a list with its elements representing the logic map given by
x_{n+1} = a*x_n(1-x_n)
I tried the following code (which adds stuff manually instead of a For loop):
x0 = Input["Enter x0"]
a = Input["a"]
M = {x0}
L[n_] := If[n < 1, x0, a*M[[n]]*(1 - M[[n]])]
Print[L[1]]
Append[M, L[1]]
Print[M]
Append[M, L[2]]
Print[M]
The output is as follows:
0.3
2
{0.3}
0.42
{0.3,0.42}
{0.3}
Part::partw: Part 2 of {0.3`} does not exist. >>
Part::partw: Part 2 of {0.3`} does not exist. >>
{0.3, 2 (1 - {0.3}[[2]]) {0.3}[[2]]}
{0.3}
It seems that, when the function definition is being called in Append[M,L[2]], L[2] is calling M[[2]] in the older definition of M, which clearly does not exist.
How can I make L use the newer, bigger version of M?
After doing this I could use a For loop to generate the entire list up to a certain index.
P.S. I apologise for the poor formatting but I could find out how to make Latex code work here.
Other minor question: What are the allowed names for functions and lists? Are underscores allowed in names?
It looks to me as if you are trying to compute the result of
FixedPointList[a*#*(1-#)&, x0]
Note:
Building lists element-by-element, whether you use a loop or some other construct, is almost always a bad idea in Mathematica. To use the system productively you need to learn some of the basic functional constructs, of which FixedPointList is one.
I'm not providing any explanation of the function I've used, nor of the interpretation of symbols such as # and &. This is all covered in the documentation which explains matters better than I can and with which you ought to become familiar.
Mathematica allows alphanumeric (only) names and they must start with a letter. Of course, Mathematic recognises many Unicode characters other than the 26 letters in the English alphabet as alphabetic. By convention (only) intrinsic names start with an upper-case letter and your own with a lower-case.
The underscore is most definitely not allowed in Mathematica names, it has a specific and widely-used interpretation as a short form of the Blank symbol.
Oh, LaTeX formatting doesn't work hereabouts, but Mathematica code is plenty readable enough.
It seems that, when the function definition is being called in
Append[M,L2], L2 is calling M[2] in the older definition of M,
which clearly does not exist.
How can I make L use the newer, bigger version of M?
M is never getting updated here. Append does not modify the parameters you pass to it; it returns the concatenated value of the arrays.
So, the following code:
A={1,2,3}
B=Append[A,5]
Will end up with B={1,2,3,5} and A={1,2,3}. A is not modfied.
To analyse your output,
0.3 // Output of x0 = Input["Enter x0"]. Note that the assignment operator returns the the assignment value.
2 // Output of a= Input["a"]
{0.3} // Output of M = {x0}
0.42 // Output of Print[L[1]]
{0.3,0.42} // Output of Append[M, L[1]]. This is the *return value*, not the new value of M
{0.3} // Output of Print[M]
Part::partw: Part 2 of {0.3`} does not exist. >> // M has only one element, so M[[2]] doesn't make sense
Part::partw: Part 2 of {0.3`} does not exist. >> // ditto
{0.3, 2 (1 - {0.3}[[2]]) {0.3}[[2]]} (* Output of Append[M, L[2]]. Again, *not* the new value of M *)
{0.3} // Output of Print[M]
The simple fix here is to use M=Append[M, L[1]].
To do it in a single for loop:
xn=x0;
For[i = 0, i < n, i++,
M = Append[M, xn];
xn = A*xn (1 - xn)
];
A faster method would be to use NestList[a*#*(1-#)&, x0,n] as a variation of the method mentioned by Mark above.
Here, the expression a*#*(1-#)& is basically an anonymous function (# is its parameter, the & is a shorthand for enclosing it in Function[]). The NestList method takes a function as one argument and recursively applies it starting with x0, for n iterations.
Other minor question: What are the allowed names for functions and lists? Are underscores allowed in names?
No underscores, they're used for pattern matching. Otherwise a variable can contain alphabets and special characters (like theta and all), but no characters that have a meaning in mathematica (parentheses/braces/brackets, the at symbol, the hash symbol, an ampersand, a period, arithmetic symbols, underscores, etc). They may contain a dollar sign but preferably not start with one (these are usually reserved for system variables and all, though you can define a variable starting with a dollar sign without breaking anything).

numerical recipies ran3 generates negative numbers

I am using numerical recipes scheme to generate random numbers (ran3, page 7 in this PDF file). I didn't notice anything strange but this time, I got a negative numbers at the "warm up" stage which are larger than MBIG. The code look as if this shouldn't happen. I can easily fix this with changing the if statement to be a while statement at the line that says if(mk.lt.MZ)mk=mk+MBIG but I want to know what are the consequences.
Edit:here is the function
FUNCTION ran3a(idum)
INTEGER idum
INTEGER MBIG,MSEED,MZ
C REAL MBIG,MSEED,MZ
REAL ran3a,FAC
PARAMETER (MBIG=1000000000,MSEED=161803398,MZ=0,FAC=1./MBIG)
C PARAMETER (MBIG=4000000.,MSEED=1618033.,MZ=0.,FAC=1./MBIG)
INTEGER i,iff,ii,inext,inextp,k
INTEGER mj,mk,ma(55)
C REAL mj,mk,ma(55)
SAVE iff,inext,inextp,ma
DATA iff /0/
if(idum.lt.0.or.iff.eq.0)then
iff=1
mj=MSEED-iabs(idum)
mj=mod(mj,MBIG)
ma(55)=mj
mk=1
do 11 i=1,54
ii=mod(21*i,55)
ma(ii)=mk
mk=mj-mk
if(mk.lt.MZ)mk=mk+MBIG
mj=ma(ii)
11 continue
do 13 k=1,4
do 12 i=1,55
ma(i)=ma(i)-ma(1+mod(i+30,55))
if(ma(i).lt.MZ)ma(i)=ma(i)+MBIG
12 continue
13 continue
inext=0
inextp=31
idum=1
endif
inext=inext+1
if(inext.eq.56)inext=1
inextp=inextp+1
if(inextp.eq.56)inextp=1
mj=ma(inext)-ma(inextp)
if(mj.lt.MZ)mj=mj+MBIG
ma(inext)=mj
ran3a=mj*FAC
return
END
I was getting Seg Faults (using gfortran 4.8) because the function was trying to change the input value idum from the negative number to 1. There is no reason for that line (nor anything with iff), so I deleted it and printed out the array ma at several different places and found no negative numbers in the array.
One possibility, though, is if iabs(idum) is larger than MSEED, you might have a problem with the line mj=MSEED - iabs(idum). You should protect from this by using mj=abs(MSEED-abs(idum)) like the book has written.
Had a look at the pdf. What you need to do is
1) Seed it: value = ran3(-1)
2) Use it: value = ran3(0)

When are numbers NOT Magic?

I have a function like this:
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(value, precision)
If I use it like this:
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(volts, 1)
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(amps, 2)
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(watts, 2)
Are those 1/2s magic numbers?
Yes, they are magic numbers. It's obvious that the numbers 1 and 2 specify precision in the code sample but not why. Why do you need amps and watts to be more precise than volts at that point?
Also, avoiding magic numbers allows you to centralize code changes rather than having to scour the code when for the literal number 2 when your precision needs to change.
I would propose something like:
HIGH_PRECISION = 3;
MED_PRECISION = 2;
LOW_PRECISION = 1;
And your client code would look like:
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(volts, LOW_PRECISION )
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(amps, MED_PRECISION )
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(watts, MED_PRECISION )
Then, if in the future you do something like this:
HIGH_PRECISION = 6;
MED_PRECISION = 4;
LOW_PRECISION = 2;
All you do is change the constants...
But to try and answer the question in the OP title:
IMO the only numbers that can truly be used and not be considered "magic" are -1, 0 and 1 when used in iteration, testing lengths and sizes and many mathematical operations. Some examples where using constants would actually obfuscate code:
for (int i=0; i<someCollection.Length; i++) {...}
if (someCollection.Length == 0) {...}
if (someCollection.Length < 1) {...}
int MyRidiculousSignReversalFunction(int i) {return i * -1;}
Those are all pretty obvious examples. E.g. start and the first element and increment by one, testing to see whether a collection is empty and sign reversal... ridiculous but works as an example. Now replace all of the -1, 0 and 1 values with 2:
for (int i=2; i<50; i+=2) {...}
if (someCollection.Length == 2) {...}
if (someCollection.Length < 2) {...}
int MyRidiculousDoublinglFunction(int i) {return i * 2;}
Now you have start asking yourself: Why am I starting iteration on the 3rd element and checking every other? And what's so special about the number 50? What's so special about a collection with two elements? the doubler example actually makes sense here but you can see that the non -1, 0, 1 values of 2 and 50 immediately become magic because there's obviously something special in what they're doing and we have no idea why.
No, they aren't.
A magic number in that context would be a number that has an unexplained meaning. In your case, it specifies the precision, which clearly visible.
A magic number would be something like:
int calculateFoo(int input)
{
return 0x3557 * input;
}
You should be aware that the phrase "magic number" has multiple meanings. In this case, it specifies a number in source code, that is unexplainable by the surroundings. There are other cases where the phrase is used, for example in a file header, identifying it as a file of a certain type.
A literal numeral IS NOT a magic number when:
it is used one time, in one place, with very clear purpose based on its context
it is used with such common frequency and within such a limited context as to be widely accepted as not magic (e.g. the +1 or -1 in loops that people so frequently accept as being not magic).
some people accept the +1 of a zero offset as not magic. I do not. When I see variable + 1 I still want to know why, and ZERO_OFFSET cannot be mistaken.
As for the example scenario of:
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(volts, 1)
And the proposed
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(volts, HIGH_PRECISION)
The 1 is magic if that function for volts with 1 is going to be used repeatedly for the same purpose. Then sure, it's "magic" but not because the meaning is unclear, but because you simply have multiple occurences.
Paul's answer focused on the "unexplained meaning" part thinking HIGH_PRECISION = 3 explained the purpose. IMO, HIGH_PRECISION offers no more explanation or value than something like PRECISION_THREE or THREE or 3. Of course 3 is higher than 1, but it still doesn't explain WHY higher precision was needed, or why there's a difference in precision. The numerals offer every bit as much intent and clarity as the proposed labels.
Why is there a need for varying precision in the first place? As an engineering guy, I can assume there's three possible reasons: (a) a true engineering justification that the measurement itself is only valid to X precision, so therefore the display shoulld reflect that, or (b) there's only enough display space for X precision, or (c) the viewer won't care about anything higher that X precision even if its available.
Those are complex reasons difficult to capture in a constant label, and are probbaly better served by a comment (to explain why something is beng done).
IF the use of those functions were in one place, and one place only, I would not consider the numerals magic. The intent is clear.
For reference:
A literal numeral IS magic when
"Unique values with unexplained meaning or multiple occurrences which
could (preferably) be replaced with named constants." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_%28programming%29 (3rd bullet)

Calculating IDs for model runs

I'm running some array jobs on a PBS system (although hopefully no knowledge of PBS systems is needed to answer my question!). I've got 24 runs, but I want to split them up into 5 sub-jobs each, so I need to run my script 120 times.
After giving the PBS option of -t 1-120, I can get the current job-array ID using $PBS_ARRAYID. However, I want to create some output files. It would be best if these output files used the ID that it would have had if there were only 24 runs, together with a sub-run identifier (e.g. output-1a.txt, output-1b.txt ... output-1e.txt, output-2a.txt).
What I therefore need is a way of calculating a way to get the ID (in the range 1-24) together with the sub-run identifier (presumably in a set of if-statements), which can be used in a shell-script. Unfortunately, neither my maths nor my Unix knowledge is quite good enough to figure this out. I assume that I'll need something to do with the quotient/remainder based on the current $PBS_ARRAYID relative to either 120 or 24, but that's as far as I've got...
You just need a little modular division. A quick simulation of this in Ruby would be:
p = Array.new;
(1..120).each {|i| p[i] = "Run #{1+(i/5)}-#{((i%5)+96).chr}" }
What this says is simply that the run should start at 1 and increment after each new section of five, and that the trailing sub-run should be the ascii character represented by 96 plus the position of the sub-run (eg, 97 == 'a').
Here it is in Bash:
#!/bin/bash
chr() {
local tmp
[ ${1} -lt 256 ] || return 1
printf -v tmp '%03o' "$1"
printf \\"$tmp"
}
for ((i = 0; i < ${#ARP[*]}; i++))
do
charcode=$((($i % 5)+97))
charachter=$(chr "$charcode")
echo "Filename: output-$((($i/5)+1))$charachter"
done
I just used ARP as the name of the array, but you can obviously substitute that. Good luck!

Resources