Can someone provide a better explanation of the xdmp:eval() and xdmp:value() functions?
I had tried to follow the Developer API. However, I am not really satisfied with the instances and it's a bit vague for me. I would really appreciate if someone could help me understand those functions and their differences with examples.
Both functions are for executing strings of code dynamically, but xdmp:value is evaluated against the current context, such that if you have variables defined in the current scope or modules declared, you can reference them without redeclaring them.
xdmp:eval necessitates the creation of an entirely new context that has no knowledge of the context calling xdmp:eval. One must define a new XQuery prolog, and variables from the main context are passed to the xdmp:eval call as parameters and declared as external variables in the eval script.
Generally, if you can use xdmp:value, it's probably the best choice; however, xdmp:eval has some capabilities that xdmp:value doesn't, namely everything defined in the <options> argument. Through these options, it's possible to control the user executing the query, the database it's executed against, transaction mode, etc.
There is another function for executing dynamic strings: xdmp:unpath, and it's similar to xdmp:value, but more limited in that it can only execute XPath.
Related
I'm wondering what benefit discriminating between local and global variables provides. It seems to me that if everything were made a global variable, there would be a lot less confusion.
Wouldn't declaring everything a global variable result in fewer errors because one wouldn't mistakenly call a local variable in a global instance, thereby encountering fewer errors?
Where is my logic wrong on this?
Some of this boils down to good coding practices. Keeping variables local also means it becomes simpler to share code from one application to another without having to worry about code conflicts. While its simpler to make everything global, getting into the habit of only using global variables when you actually have to will force you to code more efficiently and will make your code more structured.
I think your key oversight is thinking that an error telling you a local variable doesn't exist is a bad thing - it isn't. You've made a mistake and ruby is telling you so. This type of mistake is usually easy to fix: you've misspelled something or you're using something that you forgot to create.
Global variables everywhere might remove those errors but they would replace them with a far harder set of errors to reason about: accidentally using a variable that another bit of code is using. Imagine if every time you called a function (one of your own or a standard library one or one from a gem) you had to check which global variables it might change (and which functions it called, since it might also change global variables) If you make a mistake then you might get an error message (if the class of the object in the variable changes enough) but often you would just silently get incorrect results (if the value of a variable you were using changes unexpectedly).
In general global variables are much harder to work with and people avoid them when possible.
If all variables are global, every line of code in every program (including those which haven't been written yet) written by every programmer on the planet (including those who haven't been born yet or are already dead) must universally, uniquely agree on the names of variables. If you use a variable name that someone else on a different continent two years from now will also use, both of your programs will break, when used together.
Some time in the past year, many functions in the V8 API were changed to have an explicit Isolate parameter. E.g. whereas you used to write ObjectTemplate::New(), now you must pass in an Isolate argument: ObjectTemplate::New(Isolate::GetCurrent()).
Is there any reason you would ever pass an isolate other than the one returned from GetCurrent()? If you were to do so, would that even work?
The reason I ask is that I'm writing bindings to use V8 for another programming language. If the Isolate parameter is always the current isolate, I might as well omit that parameter and hardcode the call to GetCurrent in the glue layer.
I am trying to learn how to use the DrRacket debugger's annotate function. My ultimate aim is to build a REPL that you can execute from within a closure and have access to everything that's in scope. (see my previous question on that topic and Greg Hendershott's well-researched answer) For the time being, I'm just trying to explore how the annotate function works. You can see my first exploratory attempt at using it, and the results, here.
The error, which is happing inside of the annotator, seems to arise when it tries to match he application of string-append. The matcher is looking for a #%plain-app and the expanded syntax I'm presenting to it contains an #%app. I'm unsure if I should be expanding the syntax differently so it comes out as a #%plain-app or if there's something else I'm doing wrong to produce the syntax I'm feeding into the annotator. Does anybody see where my error is?
This revision to my previous pasterack post is swallowed without complaint. It seems that the syntax match must take place on a top-level syntax object (ruling out anything that could happen in an expansion phase, like a macro), and expansion must take place with a current namespace attached. There are some more subtleties in the syntax match, particularly around the fact that the syntax object needs to be free-identifier=? to #%plain-app. For all the gory details, refer to the mailing list thread I started.
I'm looking at a piece of very old VB6, and have come across usages such as
Form5!ProgressBar.Max = time_max
and
Form5!ProgressBar.Value = current_time
Perusing the answer to this question here and reading this page here, I deduce that these things mean the same as
Form5.ProgressBar.Max = time_max
Form5.ProgressBar.Value = current_time
but it isn't at all clear that this is the case. Can anyone confirm or deny this, and/or point me at an explanation in words of one syllable?
Yes, Form5!ProgressBar is almost exactly equivalent to Form5.ProgressBar
As far as I can remember there is one difference: the behaviour if the Form5 object does not have a ProgressBar member (i.e. the form does not have a control called ProgressBar). The dot-notation is checked at compile time but the exclamation-mark notation is checked at run time.
Form5.ProgressBar will not compile.
Form5!ProgressBar will compile but will give an error at runtime.
IMHO the dot notation is preferred in VB6, especially when accessing controls. The exclamation mark is only supported for backward-compatibility with very old versions of VB.
The default member of a Form is (indirectly) the Controls collection.
The bang (!) syntax is used for collection access in VB, and in many cases the compiler makes use of it to early bind things that otherwise would be accessed more slowly through late binding.
Far from deprecated, it is often preferable.
However in this case since the default member of Form objects is [_Default] As Object containing a reference to a Controls As Object instance, there is no particular advantage or disadvantage to this syntax over:
Form5("ProgressBar").Value
I agree that in this case however it is better to more directly access the control as a member of the Form as in:
Form5.ProgressBar.Value
Knowing the difference between these is a matter of actually knowing VB. It isn't simply syntactic though, the two "paths" do different things that get to the same result.
Hopefully this answer offers an explanation rather merely invoking voodoo.
As a continuation of this question and the subsequent answer, does anyone know how to have a job created using the Parallel Computing Toolbox (using createJob and createTask) access external toolboxes? Is there a configuration parameter I can specify when creating the function to specify toolboxes that should be loaded?
According to this section of the documentation, one way you can do this is to specify either the 'PathDependencies' property or the 'FileDependencies' property of the job object so that it points to the functions you need the job's workers to be able to use.
You should be able to point the way to the KbCheck function in PsychToolbox, along with any other functions or directories needed for KbCheck to work properly. It would look something like this:
obj = createJob('PathDependencies',{'path_to_KbCheck',...
'path_to_other_PTB_functions'});
A few comments, based on my work troubleshooting this:
It appears that there are inconsistencies with how well nested functions and anonymous functions work with the Parallel Computation toolkit. I was unable to get them to work, while others have been able to. (Also see here.) As such, I would recommend having each function stored in it's own file, and including those files using the PathDependencies or FileDependencies properties, as described by gnovice above.
It is very hard to troubleshoot the Parallel Computation toolkit, as everything happens outside your view. Use breakpoints liberally in your code, and the inspect command is your friend. Also note that if there is an error, task objects will contain an error parameter, which in turn will contain ErrorMessage string, and possibly the Error.causes MException object. Both of these were immensely useful in debugging.
When including Psychtoolbox, you need to do it as follows. First, create a jobStartup.m file with the following lines:
PTB_path = '/Users/eliezerk/Documents/MATLAB/Psychtoolbox3/';
addpath( PTB_path );
cd( PTB_path );
SetupPsychtoolbox;
However, since the Parallel Computation toolkit can't handle any graphics functionality, running SetupPsychtoolbox as-is will actually cause your thread to crash. To avoid this, you need to edit the PsychtoolboxPostInstallRoutine function, which is called at the very end of SetupPsychtoolbox. Specifically, you want to comment out the line AssertOpenGL (line 496, as of the time of this answer; this may change in future releases).