I'm playing with iterables and comprehension in Julia and tried to code simple problem: find all pairs of numbers less then 10 whose product is less then 10. This was my first try:
solution = filter((a,b)->a*b<10, product(1:10, 1:10))
collect(solution)
but I got error "wrong number of arguments". This is kind of expected because anonymous function inside filter expects two arguments but it gets one tuple.
I know I can do
solution = filter(p->p[1]*p[2]<10, product(1:10, 1:10))
but it doesn't look nice as the one above. Is there a way I can tell that (a,b) is argument of type tuple and use something similar to syntax in first example?
I don't think there's a way to do exactly as you'd like, but here are some alternatives you could consider for the anonymous function:
x->let (a,b)=x; a*b<10 end
x->((a,b)=x; a*b<10)
These can of course be made into macros if you like:
macro tup(ex)
#assert ex.head == :(->)
#assert ex.args[1].head == :tuple
arg = gensym()
quote
$arg -> ( $(ex.args[1]) = $arg; $(ex.args[2]) )
end
end
Then #tup (a, b) -> a * b < 10 will do as you like.
Metaprogramming in Julia is pretty useful and common for situations where you are doing something over and over and would like specialized syntax for it. But I would avoid this kind of metaprogramming if this were a one-off thing, because adding new syntax means learning new syntax and makes code harder to read.
Related
I wanted to learn more about for loops, as far as I know there are different types?
For instance,
for i = 1, 5 do
print("hello")
end
^ I know about this one, it's going to print hello 5 times, but there are others like the one below which I do not understand, specifically the index bit (does that mean it is number 1?) and what is the ipairs for
for index, 5 in ipairs(x) do
print("hello")
end
If there are any other types please let me know, I want to learn all of them and if you can provide any further reading I'd be more than greatful to check them out
As you can read in the Lua reference manual
3.3.5 For Statement
The for statement has two forms: one numerical and one generic.
The numerical for loop repeats a block of code while a control
variable runs through an arithmetic progression. It has the following
syntax:
stat ::= for Name ‘=’ exp ‘,’ exp [‘,’ exp] do block end
Example:
for i = 1, 3 do
print(i)
end
Will output
1
2
3
You seem familiar with that one. Read the reference manual section for more details.
The generic for statement works over functions, called iterators. On
each iteration, the iterator function is called to produce a new
value, stopping when this new value is nil. The generic for loop has
the following syntax:
stat ::= for namelist in explist do block end namelist ::= Name {‘,’
Name}
Example:
local myTable = {"a", "b", "c"}
for i, v in ipairs(myTable) do
print(i, v)
end
Will ouput
1 a
2 b
3 c
ipairs is one of those iterator functions mentioned:
Returns three values (an iterator function, the table t, and 0) so
that the construction
for i,v in ipairs(t) do body end will iterate over the key–value pairs (1,t[1]), (2,t[2]), ..., up to the first nil value.
Read more about ipairs and pairs here:
https://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/manual.html#pdf-pairs
https://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/manual.html#pdf-ipairs
Of course you can implement your own iterator functions!
Make sure you also read:
Programming in Lua: 7 Iterators and the Generic for
Yes, It will print hello 5 times
According to this answer on Difference between pairs, ipairs, and next?
ipairs does the exact same thing as pairs, but with a slight twist to it.
ipairs runs through the table, until it finds a nil value, or a value that is non-existent, if that makes sense. So, if you ran the script I showed you for pairs, but just replaced pairs with ipairs, it would do the exact same thing
Is there an easy way to change a "for loop header" depending on the packages a user has? For example, #progress for is good for adding a progress bar in Juno/Atom (just found out!), while we also have things like #simd, #acc, and #parallel. So what I want to have on this loop is to put a bunch of these macros conditionally given a boolean from the user or depending on availability. However, if I do a simple
if isdefined(#progress)
#progress for ...
elseif accelerate
#acc for ...
elseif
#parallel for ...
end
or something of that sort, I would have to keep pasting around the same for loop code. Is there some more elegant way of doing this? Also, I may want to combine some, and so once you start looking at the viable combinations that ends up being a lot of code!
The Pkg.installed method will error if the package isn't installed. It takes a string, and returning the decorated expression after that line with the other possibility in the catch block is effective for this sort of thing:
macro optional_something(pkg, expr)
try
Pkg.installed(string(pkg)) == nothing && return expr
esc(quote
#time $expr
end)
catch
expr
end
end
# this won't add the macro #time
#optional_something XXX rand(1000)
# this will
#optional_something Plots rand(1000)
I have this program that I am working on that is supposed to find the sum of the first 1000 prime numbers. Currently all I am concerned with is making sure that the program is finding the first 1000 prime numbers, I will add the functionality for adding them later. Here is what I have:
#!/usr/bin/ruby
def prime(num)
is_prime = true
for i in 2..Math.sqrt(num)
if (num % i) == 0
is_prime = false
else
is_prime = true
end
end
return is_prime
end
i = 2
number_of_primes = 0
while number_of_primes < 1000
prime = prime(i)
if prime == true
number_of_primes++
end
i++
end
When i try to run the program I get the following feedback:
sumOfPrimes.rb:32: syntax error, unexpected keyword_end
sumOfPrimes.rb:34: syntax error, unexpected keyword_end
what gives? Any direction is appreciated.
Ruby doesn't have ++ operator, you need to do += 1
number_of_primes += 1
Unasked for, but a few pieces of advice if you're interested:
One of the cool things about Ruby is that question marks are legal in method names. As such you'll often find that 'predicate' methods (methods that test something and return true or false) end with a question mark, like this: odd?. Your prime method is a perfect candidate for this, so we can rename it prime?.
You use a local variable, is_prime, to hold whether you have found a factor of the number you're testing yet - this is the kind of thing you'd expect to do in an imperative language such as java or C - but Ruby has all sorts of cool features from functional programming that you will gain great power and expressiveness by learning. If you haven't come across them before, you may need to google what a block is and how the syntax works, but for this purpose you can just think of it as a way to get some code run on every item of a collection. It can be used with a variety of cool methods, and one of them is perfectly suited to your purpose: none?, which returns true if no items in the collection it is called on, when passed to the code block you give, return true. So your prime? method can be rewritten like this:
def prime? num
(2..Math.sqrt(num)).none? { |x| num % x == 0 }
end
Apart from being shorter, the advantage of not needing to use local variables like is_prime is that you give yourself fewer opportunities to introduce bugs - if for example you think the contents of is_prime is one thing but it's actually another. It's also, if you look carefully, a lot closer to the actual mathematical definition of a prime number. So by cutting out the unnecessary code you can get closer to exposing the 'meaning' of what you're writing.
As far as getting the first 1000 primes goes, infinite streams are a really cool way to do this but are probably a bit complex to explain here - definitely google if you're interested as they really are amazing! But just out of interest, here's a simple way you could do it using just recursion and no local variables (remember local variables are the devil!):
def first_n_primes(i = 2, primes = [], n)
if primes.count == n then primes
elsif prime? i then first_n_primes(i + 1, primes + [i], n)
else first_n_primes(i + 1, primes, n)
end
end
And as far as summing them up goes all I'll say is have a search for a ruby method called inject - also called reduce. It might be a bit brain-bending at first if you haven't come across the concept before but it's well worth learning! Very cool and very powerful.
Have fun!
I have to search an item in an array and return the value of the next item. Example:
a = ['abc.df','-f','test.h']
i = a.find_index{|x| x=~/-f/}
puts a[i+1]
Is there any better way other than working with index?
A classical functional approach uses no indexes (xs.each_cons(2) -> pairwise combinations of xs):
xs = ['abc.df', '-f', 'test.h']
(xs.each_cons(2).detect { |x, y| x =~ /-f/ } || []).last
#=> "test.h"
Using Enumerable#map_detect simplifies it a litte bit more:
xs.each_cons(2).map_detect { |x, y| y if x =~ /-f/ }
#=> "test.h"
The reason something like array.find{something}.next doesn't exist is that it's an array rather than a linked list. Each item is just it's own value; it doesn't have a concept of "the item after me".
#tokland gives a good solution by iterating over the array with each pair of consecutive items, so that when the first item matches, you have your second item handy. There are strong arguments to be made for the functional style, to be sure. Your version is shorter, though, and I'd argue that yours is also more quickly and easily understood at a glance.
If the issue is that you're using it a lot and want something cleaner and more to the point, then of course you could just add it as a singleton method to a:
def a.find_after(&test)
self[find_index(&test).next]
end
Then
a.find_after{|x| x=~/-f/}
is a clear way to find the next item after the first match.
All of that said, I think #BenjaminCox makes the best point about what appears to be your actual goal. If you're parsing command line options, there are libraries that do that well.
I don't know of a cleaner way to do that specific operation. However, it sure looks like you're trying to parse command-line arguments. If so, I'd recommend using the built-in OptionParser module - it'll save a ton of time and hair-pulling trying to parse them yourself.
This article explains how it works.
Your solution working with indexes is fine, as others have commented. You could use Enumerable#drop_while to get an array from your match on and take the second element of that:
a = ['abc.df','-f','test.h']
f_arg = a.drop_while { |e| e !~ /-f/ }[1]
Consider the following code in C:
for(int i=0; i<10 && some_condition; ++i){
do_something();
}
I would like to write something similar in Python. The best version I can think of is:
i = 0
while some_condition and i<10:
do_something()
i+=1
Frankly, I don't like while loops that imitate for loops. This is due to the risk of forgetting to increment the counter variable. Another option, that addressess this risk is:
for i in range(10):
if not some_condition: break
do_something()
Important clarifications
some_condition is not meant to be calculated during the loop, but rather to specify whether to start the loop in the first place
I'm referring to Python2.6
Which style is preferred? Is there a better idiom to do this?
This might not be related, but there's what I'm used to do... If some_condition is simple enough, put it in a function and filter items you iterate over:
def some_condition(element):
return True#False
for i in filter(some_condition, xrange(10)):
pass
You can use this approach also when you iterate over some list of elements.
selected = filter(some_condition, to_process)
for i, item in enumerate(selected):
pass
Again, this might not be your case, you should choose method of filtering items depending on your problem.
In general, the "range + break" style is preferred - but in Python 2.x, use xrange instead of range for iteration (this creates the values on-demand instead of actually making a list of numbers).
But it always depends. What's special about the number 10 in this context? What exactly is some_condition? Etc.
Response to update:
It sounds as though some_condition is a "loop invariant", i.e. will not change during the loop. In that case, we should just test it first:
if some_condition:
for i in xrange(10):
do_something()
for loops with a constant upper bound are a bit rare in Python. If you are iterating over somearray, you might do:
for i in xrange(len(somearray)):
if not some_condition:
break
do_sth_with(i, somearray[i])
or, better:
for i, item in enumerate(somearray):
if not some_condition:
break
do_sth_with(i, item)