Related
I know i will look like a total noob, but there's something I can't wrap my head around. Let me emphasize that i DID google this thing, but i didn't find what I was looking for.
I'm going through the learnrubythehardway course, and for ex39 this is one of the functions we have defined:
def Dict.hash_key(aDict, key)
return key.hash % aDict.length
end
The author gives this explanation:
hash_key
This deceptively simple function is the core of how a hash works. What it does is uses the built-in Ruby hash function to convert a
string to a number. Ruby uses this function for its own hash data
structure, and I'm just reusing it. You should fire up a Ruby console
to see how it works. Once I have a number for the key, I then use the
% (modulus) operator and the aDict.length to get a bucket where this
key can go. As you should know, the % (modulus) operator will divide
any number and give me the remainder. I can also use this as a way of
limiting giant numbers to a fixed smaller set of other numbers. If you
don't get this then use Ruby to explore it
I like this course, but the above paragraph was no help.
Ok, you call the function passing it two arguments (aDict is an array) and it returns something.
(My questions are not totally independent of one another.)
What and how does it do that? (ok, it returns a bucket index, but how do we "get there"?)
What does the key.hash do/what is it?
How does using the % help me get what I need? (What is the use of "modding" the key.hash by the aDict.length?)
"Use Ruby to explore it." - ok, but my question No.2. kinda already suggests that I wouldn't know how to go about doing that.
Thanks in advance.
key.hash is calling Object#hash, which is not to be confused with Hash.
Object#hash converts a string into a number consistently (the same string will always result in the same number, in the same running instance of Ruby).
pry(main)> "abc".hash
=> -1672853150
So now we have a number, but it's way too large for the number of buckets in our Dict structure, which defaults to 256 buckets. So we modulus it to get a number within our bucket range.
pry(main)> "abc".hash % 256
=> 98
This essentially allows us to translate Dict["abc"] into aDict[98].
RE: This example in particular
I'm going to change the order of things in a way that I hope makes more sense:
#2. You can think of a hash as a sort of 'fingerprint' of something. The .hash method will create a (generally) unique output for any given input.
#3. In this case, we know that the hash is a number, so we take the modulo of the generated number by the backing array's length in order to find a (hopefully empty) index that is within our storage's bounds.
#1. That's how. A hashing algorithm will return the same output for any given input. The modulo takes this output and turns it into something we can actually use in an array to find something reliably.
#4. Call hash on something. Call it on a string and then modulo it by the length of an array. Try again on another string. Do that again, and use your result to assign something to that array. Do it again to see that the hash and modulo thing will find that value again.
Further Notes:
By itself, the modulo function is not a good way to pick unique indexes for keys. This example is the first step, but especially in a small array, there is still a relatively large chance for the hashes of different keys to modulo into the same number. That's called a collision, and handling those seems to be outside the scope of this question.
XPath 2.0 has some new functions and syntax, relative to 1.0, that work with sequences. Some of theset don't really add to what the language could already do in 1.0 (with node sets), but they make it easier to express the desired logic in ways that are more readable. This increases the chances of the programmer getting the code correct -- and keeping it that way. For example,
empty(s) is equivalent to not(s), but its intent is much clearer when you want to test whether a sequence is empty.
Correction: the effective boolean value of a sequence is in general more complicated than that. E.g. empty((0)) != not((0)). This applies to exists(s) vs. s in a boolean context as well. However, there are domains of s where empty(s) is equivalent to not(s), so the two could be used interchangeably within those domains. But this goes to show that the use of empty() can make a non-trivial difference in making code easier to understand.
Similarly, exists(s) is equivalent to boolean(s) that already existed in XPath 1.0 (or just s in a boolean context), but again is much clearer about the intent.
Quantified expressions; e.g. "some $x in expression satisfies test($x)" would be equivalent to boolean(expression[test(.)]) (although the new syntax is more flexible, in that you don't need to worry about losing the context item because you have the variable to refer to it by).
Similarly, "every $x in expression satisfies test($x)" would be equivalent to not(expression[not(test(.))]) but is more readable.
These functions and syntax were evidently added at no small cost, solely to serve the goal of writing XPath that is easier to map to how humans think. This implies, as experienced developers know, that understandable code is significantly superior to code that is difficult to understand.
Given all that ... what would be a clear and readable way to write an XPath test expression that asks
Does value X occur in sequence S?
Some ways to do it: (Note: I used X and S notation here to indicate the value and the sequence, but I don't mean to imply that these subexpressions are element name tests, nor that they are simple expressions. They could be complicated.)
X = S: This would be one of the most unreadable, since it requires the reader to
think about which of X and S are sequences vs. single values
understand general comparisons, which are not obvious from the syntax
However, one advantage of this form is that it allows us to put the topic (X) before the comment ("is a member of S"), which, I think, helps in readability.
See also CMS's good point about readability, when the syntax or names make the "cardinality" of X and S obvious.
index-of(S, X): This one is clear about what's intended as a value and what as a sequence (if you remember the order of arguments to index-of()). But it expresses more than we need to: it asks for the index, when all we really want to know is whether X occurs in S. This is somewhat misleading to the reader. An experienced developer will figure out what's intended, with some effort and with understanding of the context. But the more we rely on context to understand the intent of each line, the more understanding the code becomes a circular (spiral) and potentially Sisyphean task! Also, since index-of() is designed to return a list of all the indexes of occurrences of X, it could be more expensive than necessary: a smart processor, in order to evaluate X = S, wouldn't necessarily have to find all the contents of S, nor enumerate them in order; but for index-of(S, X), correct order would have to be determined, and all contents of S must be compared to X. One other drawback of using index-of() is that it's limited to using eq for comparison; you can't, for example, use it to ask whether a node is identical to any node in a given sequence.
Correction: This form, used as a conditional test, can result in a runtime error: Effective boolean value is not defined for a sequence of two or more items starting with a numeric value. (But at least we won't get wrong boolean values, since index-of() can't return a zero.) If S can have multiple instances of X, this is another good reason to prefer form 3 or 6.
exists(index-of(X, S)): makes the intent clearer, and would help the processor eliminate the performance penalty if the processor is smart enough.
some $m in S satisfies $m eq X: This one is very clear, and matches our intent exactly. It seems long-winded compared to 1, and that in itself can reduce readability. But maybe that's an acceptable price for clarity. Keep in mind that X and S could potentially be complex expressions themselves -- they're not necessarily just variable references. An advantage is that since the eq operator is explicit, you can replace it with is or any other comparison operator.
S[. eq X]: clearer than 1, but shares the semantic drawbacks of 2: it computes all members of S that are equal to X. Actually, this could return a false negative (incorrect effective boolean value), if X is falsy. E.g. (0, 1)[. eq 0] returns 0 which is falsy, even though 0 occurs in (0, 1).
exists(S[. eq X]): Clearer than 1, 2, 3, and 5. Not as clear as 4, but shorter. Avoids the drawbacks of 5 (or at least most of them, depending on the processor smarts).
I'm kind of leaning toward the last one, at this point: exists(S[. eq X])
What about you... As a developer coming to a complex, unfamiliar XSLT or XQuery or other program that uses XPath 2.0, and wanting to figure out what that program is doing, which would you find easiest to read?
Apologies for the long question. Thanks for reading this far.
Edit: I changed = to eq wherever possible in the above discussion, to make it easier to see where a "value comparison" (as opposed to a general comparison) was intended.
For what it's worth, if names or context make clear that X is a singleton, I'm happy to use your first form, X = S -- for example when I want to check an attribute value against a set of possible values:
<xsl:when test="#type = ('A', 'A+', 'A-', 'B+')" />
or
<xsl:when test="#type = $magic-types"/>
If I think there is a risk of confusion, then I like your sixth formulation. The less frequently I have to remember the rules for calculating an effective boolean value, the less frequently I make a mistake with them.
I prefer this one:
count(distinct-values($seq)) eq count(distinct-values(($x, $seq)))
When $x is itself a sequence, this expression implements the (value-based) subset of relation between two sets of values, that are represented as sequences. This implementation of subset of has just linear time complexity -- vs many other ways of expressing this, that have O(N^2)) time complexity.
To summarize, the question whether a single value belongs to a set of values is a special case of the question whether one set of values is a subset of another. If we have a good implementation of the latter, we can simply use it for answering the former.
The functx library has a nice implementation of this function, so you can use
functx:is-node-in-sequence($X, $Y)
(this particular function can be found at http://www.xqueryfunctions.com/xq/functx_is-node-in-sequence.html)
The whole functx library is available for both XQuery (http://www.xqueryfunctions.com/) and XSLT (http://www.xsltfunctions.com/)
Marklogic ships the functx library with their core product; other vendors may also.
Another possibility, when you want to know whether node X occurs in sequence S, is
exists((X) intersect S)
I think that's pretty readable, and concise. But it only works when X and the values in S are nodes; if you try to ask
exists(('bob') intersect ('alice', 'bob'))
you'll get a runtime error.
In the program I'm working on now, I need to compare strings, so this isn't an option.
As Dimitri notes, the occurrence of a node in a sequence is a question of identity, not of value comparison.
I'm very sorry to bother you on this outdated language, but is there any way to check if the particular array element is empty in pascal?
It's an integer array, so checking element against empty string causes type mismatch (I love this language!).
Thanks for your time.
An integer value cannot be empty. It always holds a value. It's not like a nullable type in certain modern languages.
Sometimes, by convention, certain values are used as sentinels, but you obviously need to apply this convention consistently across all uses of the variable. What's more, a sentinel is only viable if you have some spare values that do not have a meaning in whatever calculation you are performing.
As I tried to debug, I found that : just as I type in
Dim value As Double
value = 0.90000
then hit enter, and it automatically converts to 0.9
Shouldn't it keep the precision in double in visual basic?
For my calculation, I absolutely need to show the precision
If precision is required then the Currency data type is what you want to use.
There are at least two representations of your value in play. One is the value you see on the screen -- a string -- and one is the internal representation -- a binary value. In dealing with fractional values, the two are often not equivalent and where they aren't, it's because they can't be.
If you stick with doubles, VB will maintain 53 bits of mantissa throughout your calculations, no matter how they might appear when printed. If you transition through the string domain, say by saving to a file or DB and later retrieving, it often has to leave some of that precision behind. It's inevitable, because the interface between the two domains is not perfect. Some values that can be exactly represented as strings (or Decimals, that is, powers of ten) can't be exactly represented as fractional powers of 2.
This has nothing to do with VB, it's the nature of floating point. The best you can do is control where the rounding occurs. For this purpose your friend is the Format function, which controls how a value appears in string form.
? Format$(0.9, "0.00000") will show you an example.
You are getting what you see on the screen confused with what bits are being set in the Double to make that number.
VB is simply being "helpful", and simply knocking off excess zeros. But for all intents and purposes,
0.9
is identical to
0.90000
If you don't believe me, try doing this comparison:
Debug.Print CDbl("0.9") = CDbl("0.90000")
As has already been said, displayed precision can be shown using the Format$() function, e.g.
Debug.Print Format$(0.9, "0.00000")
No, it shouldn't keep the precision. Binary floating point values don't retain this information... and it would be somewhat odd to do so, given that you're expressing the value in one base even though it's being represented in another.
I don't know whether VB6 has a decimal floating point type, but that's probably what you want - or a fixed point decimal type, perhaps. Certainly in .NET, System.Decimal has retained extra 0s from .NET 1.1 onwards. If this doesn't help you, you could think about remembering two integers - e.g. "90000" and "100000" in this case, so that the value you're representing is one integer divided by another, with the associated level of precision.
EDIT: I thought that Currency may be what you want, but according to this article, that's fixed at 4 decimal places, and you're trying to retain 5. You could potentially just multiply by 10, if you always want 5 decimal places - but it's an awkward thing to remember to do everywhere... and you'd have to work out how to format it appropriately. It would also always be 4 decimal places, I suspect, even if you'd specified fewer - so if you want "0.300" to be different to "0.3000" then Currency may not be appropriate. I'm entirely basing this on articles online though...
You can also enter the value as 0.9# instead. This helps avoid implicit coercion within an expression that may truncate the precision you expect. In most cases the compiler won't require this hint though because floating point literals default to Double (indeed, the IDE typically deletes the # symbol unless the value was an integer, e.g. 9#).
Contrast the results of these:
MsgBox TypeName(0.9)
MsgBox TypeName(0.9!)
MsgBox TypeName(0.9#)
Hi I was wondering if there is any known way to get rid of unnecessary parentheses in mathematical formula. The reason I am asking this question is that I have to minimize such formula length
if((-if(([V].[6432])=0;0;(([V].[6432])-([V].[6445]))*(((([V].[6443]))/1000*([V].[6448])
+(([V].[6443]))*([V].[6449])+([V].[6450]))*(1-([V].[6446])))))=0;([V].[6428])*
((((([V].[6443]))/1000*([V].[6445])*([V].[6448])+(([V].[6443]))*([V].[6445])*
([V].[6449])+([V].[6445])*([V].[6450])))*(1-([V].[6446])));
it is basically part of sql select statement. It cannot surpass 255 characters and I cannot modify the code that produces this formula (basically a black box ;) )
As you see many parentheses are useless. Not mentioning the fact that:
((a) * (b)) + (c) = a * b + c
So I want to keep the order of operations Parenthesis, Multiply/Divide, Add/Subtract.
Im working in VB, but solution in any language will be fine.
Edit
I found an opposite problem (add parentheses to a expression) Question.
I really thought that this could be accomplished without heavy parsing. But it seems that some parser that will go through the expression and save it in a expression tree is unevitable.
If you are interested in remove the non-necessary parenthesis in your expression, the generic solution consists in parsing your text and build the associated expression tree.
Then, from this tree, you can find the corresponding text without non-necessary parenthesis, by applying some rules:
if the node is a "+", no parenthesis are required
if the node is a "*", then parenthesis are required for left(right) child only if the left(right) child is a "+"
the same apply for "/"
But if your problem is just to deal with these 255 characters, you can probably just use intermediate variables to store intermediate results
T1 = (([V].[6432])-([V].[6445]))*(((([V].[6443]))/1000*([V].[6448])+(([V].[6443]))*([V].[6449])+([V].[6450]))*(1-([V].[6446])))))
T2 = etc...
You could strip the simplest cases:
([V].[6432]) and (([V].[6443]))
Becomes
v.[6432]
You shouldn't need the [] around the table name or its alias.
You could shorten it further if you can alias the columns:
select v.[6432] as a, v.[6443] as b, ....
Or even put all the tables being queried into a single subquery - then you wouldn't need the table prefix:
if((-if(a=0;0;(a-b)*((c/1000*d
+c*e+f)*(1-g))))=0;h*
(((c/1000*b*d+c*b*
e+b*f))*(1-g));
select [V].[6432] as a, [V].[6445] as b, [V].[6443] as c, [V].[6448] as d,
[V].[6449] as e, [V].[6450] as f,[V].[6446] as g, [V].[6428] as h ...
Obviously this is all a bit psedo-code, but it should help you simplify the full statement
I know this thread is really old, but as it is searchable from google.
I'm writing a TI-83 plus calculator program that addresses similar issues. In my case, I'm trying to actually solve the equation for a specific variable in number, but it may still relate to your problem, although I'm using an array, so it might be easier for me to pick out specific values...
It's not quite done, but it does get rid of the vast majority of parentheses with (I think), a somewhat elegant solution.
What I do is scan through the equation/function/whatever, keeping track of each opening parenthese "(" until I find a closing parenthese ")", at which point I can be assured that I won't run into any more deeply nested parenthese.
y=((3x + (2))) would show the (2) first, and then the (3x + (2)), and then the ((3x + 2))).
What it does then is checks the values immediately before and after each parenthese. In the case above, it would return + and ). Each of these is assigned a number value. Between the two of them, the higher is used. If no operators are found (*,/,+,^, or -) I default to a value of 0.
Next I scan through the inside of the parentheses. I use a similar numbering system, although in this case I use the lowest value found, not the highest. I default to a value of 5 if nothing is found, as would be in the case above.
The idea is that you can assign a number to the importance of the parentheses by subtracting the two values. If you have something like a ^ on the outside of the parentheses
(2+3)^5
those parentheses are potentially very important, and would be given a high value, (in my program I use 5 for ^).
It is possible however that the inside operators would render the parentheses very unimportant,
(2)^5
where nothing is found. In that case the inside would be assigned a value of 5. By subtracting the two values, you can then determine whether or not a set of parentheses is neccessary simply by checking whether the resulting number is greater than 0. In the case of (2+3)^5, a ^ would give a value of 5, and a + would give a value of 1. The resulting number would be 4, which would indicate that the parentheses are in fact needed.
In the case of (2)^5 you would have an inner value of 5 and an outer value of 5, resulting
in a final value of 0, showing that the parentheses are unimportant, and can be removed.
The downside to this is that, (at least on the TI-83) scanning through the equation so many times is ridiculously slow. But if speed isn't an issue...
Don't know if that will help at all, I might be completely off topic. Hope you got everything up and working.
I'm pretty sure that in order to determine what parentheses are unnecessary, you have to evaluate the expressions within them. Because you can nest parentheses, this is is the sort of recursive problem that a regular expression can only address in a shallow manner, and most likely to incorrect results. If you're already evaluating the expression, maybe you'd like to simplify the formula if possible. This also gets kind of tricky, and in some approaches uses techniques that that are also seen in machine learning, such as you might see in the following paper: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1005298
If your variable names don't change significantly from 1 query to the next, you could try a series of replace() commands. i.e.
X=replace([QryString],"(([V].[6443]))","[V].[6443]")
Also, why can't it surpass 255 characters? If you are storing this as a string field in an Access table, then you could try putting half the expression in 1 field and the second half in another.
You could also try parsing your expression using ANTLR, yacc or similar and create a parse tree. These trees usually optimize parentheses away. Then you would just have to create expression back from tree (without parentheses obviously).
It might take you more than a few hours to get this working though. But expression parsing is usually the first example on generic parsing, so you might be able to take a sample and modify it to your needs.