In relationship to this thread, this is also what i am kind of trying to do but i have had a bit more leeway in this.
My problem is i am currently working on a defining program (for my ti-89 titanium) to write out the definitions of variables. However, considering i had indefinite amounts of variables to add, i thought using the define function over and over again would waste memory and processing power. So my thinking was Save the variable to another variable to be defined in a later portion of the program.
prompt x
lbl x_d_r
x_d_r->q:Goto def
lbl def
define expr(q)[1]=x
where x_d_r has no assigned value. So the program was supposed to use the defined string as a list value to be x. However the obvious error came about.
So i played around on the home screen and program screen for a bit and came across entry(1) and ans(1). See back on the ti-83 (or 84) i could basically go (If i remember correctly)
disp q*1
x->ans(1)
However ans(1) on a ti-89 titanium is based upon the last answer submitted to the homescreen. Even then, ans(1) or entry(1) gets replaced in the program by just that. Lucky me, i found a way to avoid this.
Prgm
expr(char(120)&char(22)&char(97)&char(110)&char(115)&char(40)&char(49)&char(41))
EndPrgm
For those that do not know, this is simply expressing x->ans(1) which is a way for the code to transmit ans(1) within a program without removing the code to say so.
But it still does not work as a value needs to be sent to the home screen in order for it to record properly. This is one of those advantages that the ti-84 or ti-83 i wish it still had on the titanium. So i have spent some time searching for ways how i can display values of q to the home screen from within a program.
So far i learned that functions when used straight from the home screen return the value of q to the same place. However i have no way of implementing this in an actual program as the function does not wish to transmit the value to the home screen, and its rather useless within the program.
Secondly i have found this website which details methods of such ways to return values to the homescreen. While method 1 seems to hold promise, i do not seem to have any way of accessing that folder/program. Most likely because it is one that he made and has not shared its location on the pdf. I do like the expr("q"&":stop"), but q is not evaluated out so maybe i would have to rework it somehow.
While this was happening, i thought some other ideas could be using the paste key within a program but i have no idea how to implement stuff found from getkey let alone how the second and grab buttons factor in.
Or i could somehow have the ans(1) look to someplace else other than the home screen. Preferably to the i/0 screen but maybe to some other list or data matrix.
Anybody have any ideas on how to relay a value to the homescreen be it through function, pasting or something, and have the program i defined earlier define it as a value?
UPDATE+1
Ok i am beginning to question if maybe i am making it more complex than it needs to be...
After all, i am only going for just x->x_d_r[1], which is already defined elsewhere. So does it beat x->q:Goto def
Lbl def
Define expr(q)=x
(Or something like that which calls to a history recording program to define values?)
in terms of processing speed and memory count?
Got it. See here for what i was really trying to do.
So as an explanation of what the main problem was again, i wanted to be able to post a string value of q to be defined by another value of x.
The expr( function is quite a powerful tool on the ti-89 and like the person in that other forum, underestimated it. See what the person was trying to do was
InputStr "Function:",f(x)
expr(f)→f(x)
And was later answered by reworking it as
InputStr "function", n
expr(n & "->f(x)")
The expression tool just simply expresses what is in the parentheses. So during break periods in school today, i reworked in my head thinking "What if i tried rewriting the parenthesis out so it reads Expr("x->"&String(q))?
Lo-and-behold it works. Tested it with the fuller version of define to get
td()
Prgm
Prompt X
x_d_r->q
expr("x->"&string(q)&"[1]")
Disp x_d_r[1]
Delvar x_d_r
EndPrgm
Tried, tested and true. Works all the way. See what i think is happening is that anything that is not within the quotes is evaluated immediately in an expression while the the quoted objects are simply expressed and added later in response to the "&" key. Furthermore it makes sense if i was to describe it more with english; "Express x to be stored into the string of q's respective table".
While for variables sake i would have to look into ways to make x_d_r local only to the program without compensating the fact that the x_d_r portion is not considered a store value when executing x_d_r->q. But knowing what i know now i could probably do
expr("q"+"x_d_r"&->a)
expr("x->"&string(a)-"q"&"[1]")
In order to bypass that problem.
Related
Assume I have a Manipulate with two dynamic variables and I want to put the corresponding controls in a Row for aesthetics reason. I can think of two ways to do it as follows:
Row[Control/#{{{a,a_in},a_min,a_max},{{b,b_in},b_min,b_bmax}}]
or
Row[{Control[{{a,a_in},a_min,a_max}],Control[{{b,b_in},b_min,b_bmax}]}]
The issue is that in the first case after the 1st run of the cell containing Manipulate with that line the variables a, b become having defined value (a_in and b_in) respectively and for further evaluation are not recognized as variables of Manipulate, while in the other case a and b remain undefined and serve correctly as dynamic variables.
I expect that the Map (/#) somehow changes the order of evaluation in the expression and that the variable "leaks" outside the Row, gets told by Manipulate to have a value and takes it on. While on the other hand the simple Control[] correctly encloses a control option and nothing "leaks". Yet I find this claim possibly false and unsatisfyingly vague (thus hard to generalize and understand Mathematica better, which I would like to).
Can someone explain why that happens or point me to some other insightful answer (I guess this is not the first time this issue came up, but I can't form a proper query to google for it.)?
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.
I have a skeleton GUI application which puts up a simple set of menus whose entries share a common callback function whose only effect is to set the value of a global variable, MenuItem, which is different for each entry. Different functions are then called for each value of MenuItem inside a Switch-Case expression, the Switch-Case is held inside a While loop whose exit condition is for MenuItem to attain a certain value. In the tail of the While loop is a uiwait call, after the Switch-Case.
This worked fine under Matlab 2009a but since I upgraded to Matlab 2011b it is broken.
Under Matlab 2011b the value of MenuItem is changed in the callback but this changed value does not seem to propagate into the Switch-Case.
Any ideas of changes between 2009a and 2011b which might have caused this, and workarounds for them? I tried reading the release notes but couldn't spot anything which appeared relevant.
(I appreciate this is a slightly unorthodox way of structuring a GUI, it is born out of a background in commandline programming)
I don't think the GUI API has changed in MATLAB between 2009a and 2011b. If the MenuItem changes do not propagate into the switch cases, then you should check that the case statements that you compare against are still valid. You should at least post your code around the switch statement in order to make a more reasonable diagnosis.
I'm considering how to do automatic bug tracking and as part of that I'm wondering what is available to match source code line numbers (or more accurate numbers mapped from instruction pointers via something like addr2line) in one version of a program to the same line in another. (Assume everything is in some kind of source control and is available to my code)
The simplest approach would be to use a diff tool/lib on the files and do some math on the line number spans, however this has some limitations:
It doesn't handle cross file motion.
It might not play well with lines that get changed
It doesn't look at the information available in the intermediate versions.
It provides no way to manually patch up lines when the diff tool gets things wrong.
It's kinda clunky
Before I start diving into developing something better:
What already exists to do this?
What features do similar system have that I've not thought of?
Why do you need to do this? If you use decent source version control, you should have access to old versions of the code, you can simply provide a link to that so people can see the bug in its original place. In fact the main problem I see with this system is that the bug may have already been fixed, but your automatic line tracking code will point to a line and say there's a bug there. Seems this system would be a pain to build, and not provide a whole lot of help in practice.
My suggestion is: instead of trying to track line numbers, which as you observed can quickly get out of sync as software changes, you should decorate each assertion (or other line of interest) with a unique identifier.
Assuming you're using C, in the case of assertions, this could be as simple as changing something like assert(x == 42); to assert(("check_x", x == 42)); -- this is functionally identical, due to the semantics of the comma operator in C and the fact that a string literal will always evaluate to true.
Of course this means that you need to identify a priori those items that you wish to track. But given that there's no generally reliable way to match up source line numbers across versions (by which I mean that for any mechanism you could propose, I believe I could propose a situation in which that mechanism does the wrong thing) I would argue that this is the best you can do.
Another idea: If you're using C++, you can make use of RAII to track dynamic scopes very elegantly. Basically, you have a Track class whose constructor takes a string describing the scope and adds this to a global stack of currently active scopes. The Track destructor pops the top element off the stack. The final ingredient is a static function Track::getState(), which simply returns a list of all currently active scopes -- this can be called from an exception handler or other error-handling mechanism.
This is a coding style questions:-
Here is the case
Dim obj1 as new ClassA
' Some lines of code which does not uses obj1
Something.Pass(obj1) ' Only line we are using obj1
Or should we directly initiaize the object when passing it as an argument?
Something.new(new ClassA())
If you're only using the object in that method call, it's probably better to just pass in "new ClassA()" directly into the call. This way, you won't have an extra variable lying around, that someone might mistakenly try to use in the future.
However, for readability, and debugging it's often useful to create the temporary object and pass it in. This way, you can inspect the variable in the debugger before it gets passed into the method.
Your question asks "should we create objects"; both your examples create an object.
There is not logically any difference at all between the two examples. Giving a name to an object allows it to be referred to in more than one place. If you aren't doing that, it's much clearer to not give it a name, so someone maintaining the code can instantly see that the object is only passed to one other method.
Generally speaking, I would say no, there's nothing wrong with what you're doing, but it does sound like there may be some blurring of responsibilities between your calling function, the called function, and the temporary object. Perhaps a bit of refactoring is in order.
I personally prefer things to be consistent, and to make my life easier (what I consider making my life easier may not be what you consider making your life easier... so do with this advice what you will).
If you have something like this:
o = new Foo();
i = 7
bar(o, i, new Car());
then you have an inconsistency (two parameters are variables, the other is created on the fly). To be consistent you would either:
always pass things as variables
always pass things created on the fly
only one of those will work (the first one!).
There are also practical aspects to it as well: making a variable makes debugging easier.
Here are some examples:
while(there are still lines in the file)
{
foo(nextLine());
}
If you want to display the next line for debugging you now need to change it to:
while(there are still lines in the file)
{
line = nextLine();
display(line);
foo(line);
}
It would be easier (and safer) to have made the variable up front. It is safer because you are less likely to accidentally call nextLine() twice (by forgetting to take it out of the foo call).
You can also view the value of "line" in a debugger without having to go into the "foo" method.
Another one that can happen is this:
foo(b.c.d()); // in Java you get a NullPointerException on this line...
was "b" or "c" the thing that was null? No idea.
Bar b;
Car c;
int d;
b = ...;
c = b.c; // NullPointException here - you know b was null
d = c.d(); // NullPointException here - you know c was null
foo(d); // can view d in the debugger without having to go into foo.
Some debuggers will let you highlight "d()" and see what it outputs, but that is dangerous if "d()" has side effects as the debugger will wind up calling "d()" each time you get the value via the debugger).
The way I code for this does make it more verbose (like this answer :-) but it also makes my life easier if things are not working as expected - I spend far less time wondering what went wrong and I am also able to fix bugs much faster than before I adopted this way of doing things.
To me the most important thing when programming is to be consistent. If you are consistent then the code is much easier to get through because you are not constantly having to figure out what is going on, and your eyes get drawn to any "oddities" in the code.