Related
I've tried searching for help but I haven't found a solution yet, I'm trying to repeat math.random.
current code:
local ok = ""
for i = 0,10 do
local ok = ok..math.random(0,10)
end
print(ok)
no clue why it doesn't work, please help
Long answer
Even if the preferable answer is already given, just copying it will probably not lead to the solution you may expect or less future mistakes. So I decided to explain why your code fails and to fix it and also help better understand how DarkWiiPlayer's answer works (except for string.rep and string.gsub).
Issues
There are at least three issues in your code:
the math.random(m, n) function includes lower and the upper values
local declarations hide a same-name objects in outer scopes
math.random gives the same number sequence unless you set its seed with math.randomseed
See Detailed explanation section below for more.
Another point seems at least worth mentioning or suspicious to me, as I assume you might be puzzled by the result (it seems to me to reflect exactly the perspective of the C programmer, from which I also got to know Lua): the Lua for loop specifies start and end value, so both of these values are included.
Attempt to repair
Here I show how a version of your code that yields the same results as the answer you accepted: a sequence of 10 percent-encoded decimal digits.
-- this will change the seed value (but mind that its resolution is seconds)
math.randomseed(os.time())
-- initiate the (only) local variable we are working on later
local ok = ""
-- encode 10 random decimals (Lua's for-loop is one-based and inclusive)
for i = 1, 10 do
ok = ok ..
-- add fixed part
'%3' ..
-- concatenation operator implicitly converts number to string
math.random(0, 9) -- a random number in range [0..9]
end
print(ok)
Detailed explanation
This explanation makes heavily use of the assert function instead of adding print calls or comment what the output should be. In my opinion assert is the superior choice for illustrating expected behavior: The function guides us from one true statement - assert(true) - to the next, at the first miss - assert(false) - the program is exited.
Random ranges
The math library in Lua provides actually three random functions depending on the count of arguments you pass to it. Without arguments, the result is in the interval [0,1):
assert(math.random() >= 0)
assert(math.random() < 1)
the one-argument version returns a value between 1 and the argument:
assert(math.random(1) == 1)
assert(math.random(10) >= 1)
assert(math.random(10) <= 10)
the two-argument version explicitly specifies min and max values:
assert(math.random(2,2) == 2)
assert(math.random(0, 9) >= 0)
assert(math.random(0, 9) <= 9)
Hidden outer variable
In this example, we have two variables x of different type, the outer x is not accessible from the inner scope.
local x = ''
assert(type(x) == 'string')
do
local x = 0
assert(type(x) == 'number')
-- inner x changes type
x = x .. x
assert(x == '00')
end
assert(type(x) == 'string')
Predictable randomness
The first call to math.random() in a Lua program will return always the same number because the pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) starts at seed 1. So if you call math.randomseed(1), you'll reset the PRNG to its initial state.
r0 = math.random()
math.randomseed(1)
r1 = math.random()
assert(r0 == r1)
After calling math.randomseed(os.time()) calls to math.random() will return different sequences presuming that subsequent program starts differ at least by one second. See question Current time in milliseconds and its answers for more information about the resolutions of several Lua functions.
string.rep(".", 10):gsub(".", function() return "%3" .. math.random(0, 9) end)
That should give you what you want
I developed the following sorting algorithm but there are some run time errors that I cant figure out. The program terminates when it comes to the part of filling the array. I'm still a beginner in ada so I couldn't figure out where the problem is...
With Ada.Text_IO;
With Ada.Integer_Text_IO;
Use Ada.Integer_Text_IO;
Use Ada.Text_IO;
Procedure sort is
n,i,x : Integer;
-- Max_Heapify Function...
Procedure Max_Heapify ( i, n : integer) is
j, Temp : Integer;
begin
Temp:=Int_Acc(i);
j:=2*i;
if Temp>Int_Acc(j) then
elsif Temp<=Int_Acc(j) then
Int_Acc(j/2):=Int_Acc(j);
j:=2*j;
end if;
end loop;
Int_Acc(j/2):=Temp;
end Max_Heapify;
begin
Get(n);
for i in MyArr'range loop
Put_Line("Enter Element " & Integer'Image(i));
Get(MyArr(i));
end loop;
end;
end sort;
Thanks in advance :)
Your Problem is that you are insisting on writing Ada code using c - Style programming paradigms.
Firstly:
The declarations:
Type Arr is array(1..20) of Integer;
Type int_access is access Arr;
MyArr : int_access;
Where you use Int_Acc : in out int_access as parameters to procedures are useless in Ada. You are trying to pass a pointer to an array in (which you are doing!), but you should just pass your Type Arr as in out - The Ada compiler knows to do this as a pointer!
Secondly:
I cannot see where you actually allocate any memory to MyArr. This is a possible source of your runtime error. (when you write to or index an array that does not exist, i would expect to have a problem!)
Thirdly:
You seem to be mixing fixed length arrays with variable length input. If N > 20, you will have a problem.
Fourthly:
Insulting the language is not the best way of getting help from those who like it.
NWS has nailed it : there is a pointer, but no array there.
But it's clear that you have learned C, which leaves you with a lot to learn about other languages including Ada. There really are better ways of doing many things, that aren't taught to C programmers because C doesn't allow them.
Allocating variable sized arrays without pointers, malloc and free for example...
Type Arr is array(positive range <>) of Integer; -- of any size
begin
Put_Line("Enter Number Of Elements Of Array");
Get(n);
declare -- now we know the size
My_Arr : Arr(1 .. n);
begin -- My_Arr is in scope until the end of this block
...
end;
end sort;
Using the type system better...
Bad programming :
for i in 1 .. n loop
Get(MyArr(i));
end loop;
HeapSort(MyArr,n);
for i in 1 .. n loop
Put_Line(Integer'Image(MyArr(i)));
end loop;
This is bad because it violates the DRY principle : loop bounds repeated, and something that hopefully represents the array size passed around as a separate parameter... a maintenance nightmare if you decide to rename n to something meaningful for example.
better programming : Use the type system. Recognise that merely declaring an array has declared a new subtype of integer, representing the index of the array. You can access it as My_Arr'range, and the high bound as My_Arr'last.
for i in My_Arr'range loop
Get(MyArr(i));
end loop;
HeapSort(MyArr);
for i in My_Arr'range loop
Put_Line(Integer'Image(MyArr(i)));
end loop;
And accidents such as redefining n after the array declaration can no longer generate buffer overflows.
NOTE: Heapsort now gets its range from the array. (Max_Heapify may still need a separate parameter to operate on subsets of the array)
Arguably best - if it makes the intent clearer - name the index datatype explicitly and use it...
declare -- now we know the size
subtype My_Range is positive range 1 .. n;
My_Arr : Arr(My_Range);
begin -- My_Arr is in scope until the end of this block
for i in My_Range loop ...
And lastly, which do you prefer; a Storage_Error exception immediately the bug occurs (writing to memory you forgot to allocate) or something odd happening much later because something scribbled across another variable?
EDIT
Having cleared up the major issues two more subtle ones remain...
If I compile the modified program (in Gnat 4.8) I get several warnings : one of them is important and tells you exactly what the problem is...
Most of the warnings stem from the fact that
for i in My_Arr'range loop
declares its own loop variable i which hides any existing in-scope declaration. So you can tidy up the code by removing the unnecessary declarations.
What remains is:
sort.adb:51:28: warning: loop range may be null
sort.adb:51:28: warning: bounds may be wrong way round
The for loop bounds are empty ranges, reversed...
1 .. 3 declares a subtype with 3 values
reverse 1 .. 3 declares the same subtype and iterates backwards over it.
But 3 .. 1 declares an EMPTY subtype (containing NO valid values) so iterating over it - either way round - does precisely nothing.
Hopefully that is the missing part of the puzzle. I'm not clear why one faulty loop gets this warning while the other (at line 38) doesn't...
if j<n **and then** Int_Acc(j+1)>Int_Acc(j) then
j:=j+1;
I think you want just 'and' instead of 'and then,' although I haven't looked at Ada code in years.
Did that compile?
I am looking for a general-purpose way of defining textual expressions which allow a value to be validated.
For example, I have a value which should only be set to 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, or 12.
Its constraint might be defined as: (value >= 1 && value <= 3) || (value >= 10 && value <= 12)
Or another value which can be 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 etc... would have a constraint like value % 2 == 1 or IsOdd(value).
(To help the user correct invalid values, I'd like to show the constraint - so something descriptive like IsOdd is preferable.)
These constraints would be evaluated both on client-side (after user input) and server-side.
Therefore a multi-platform solution would be ideal (specifically Win C#/Linux C++).
Is there an existing language/project which allows evaluation or parsing of similar simple expressions?
If not, where might I start creating my own?
I realise this question is somewhat vague as I am not entirely sure what I am after. Searching turned up no results, so even some terms as a starting point would be helpful. I can then update/tag the question accordingly.
You may want to investigate dependently typed languages like Idris or Agda.
The type system of such languages allows encoding of value constraints in types. Programs that cannot guarantee the constraints will simply not compile. The usual example is that of matrix multiplication, where the dimensions must match. But this is so to speak the "hello world" of dependently typed languages, the type system can do much more for you.
If you end up starting your own language I'd try to stay implementation-independent as long as possible. Look for the formal expression grammars of a suitable programming language (e.g. C) and add special keywords/functions as required. Once you have a formal definition of your language, implement a parser using your favourite parser generator.
That way, even if your parser is not portable to a certain platform you at least have a formal standard from where to start a separate parser implementation.
You may also want to look at creating a Domain Specific Language (DSL) in Ruby. (Here's a good article on what that means and what it would look like: http://jroller.com/rolsen/entry/building_a_dsl_in_ruby)
This would definitely give you the portability you're looking for, including maybe using IronRuby in your C# environment, and you'd be able to leverage the existing logic and mathematical operations of Ruby. You could then have constraint definition files that looked like this:
constrain 'wakeup_time' do
6 <= value && value <= 10
end
constrain 'something_else' do
check (value % 2 == 1), MustBeOdd
end
# constrain is a method that takes one argument and a code block
# check is a function you've defined that takes a two arguments
# MustBeOdd is the name of an exception type you've created in your standard set
But really, the great thing about a DSL is that you have a lot of control over what the constraint files look like.
there are a number of ways to verify a list of values across multiple languages. My preferred method is to make a list of the permitted values and load them into a dictionary/hashmap/list/vector (dependant on the language and your preference) and write a simple isIn() or isValid() function, that will check that the value supplied is valid based on its presence in the data structure. The beauty of this is that the code is trivial and can be implemented in just about any language very easily. for odd-only or even-only numeric validity again, a small library of different language isOdd() functions will suffice: if it isn't odd it must by definition be even (apart from 0 but then a simple exception can be set up to handle that, or you can simply specify in your code documentation that for logical purposes your code evaluates 0 as odd/even (your choice)).
I normally cart around a set of c++ and c# functions to evaluate isOdd() for similar reasons to what you have alluded to, and the code is as follows:
C++
bool isOdd( int integer ){ return (integer%2==0)?false:true; }
you can also add inline and/or fastcall to the function depending on need or preference; I tend to use it as an inline and fastcall unless there is a need to do otherwise (huge performance boost on xeon processors).
C#
Beautifully the same line works in C# just add static to the front if it is not going to be part of another class:
static bool isOdd( int integer ){ return (integer%2==0)?false:true; }
Hope this helps, in any event let me know if you need any further info:)
Not sure if it's what you looking for, but judging from your starting conditions (Win C#/Linux C++) you may not need it to be totally language agnostic. You can implement such a parser yourself in C++ with all the desired features and then just use it in both C++ and C# projects - thus also bypassing the need to add external libraries.
On application design level, it would be (relatively) simple - you create a library which is buildable cross-platform and use it in both projects. The interface may be something simple like:
bool VerifyConstraint_int(int value, const char* constraint);
bool VerifyConstraint_double(double value, const char* constraint);
// etc
Such interface will be usable both in Linux C++ (by static or dynamic linking) and in Windows C# (using P/Invoke). You can have same codebase compiling on both platforms.
The parser (again, judging from what you've described in the question) may be pretty simple - a tree holding elements of types Variable and Expression which can be Evaluated with a given Variable value.
Example class definitions:
class Entity {public: virtual VARIANT Evaluate() = 0;} // boost::variant may be used typedef'd as VARIANT
class BinaryOperation: public Entity {
private:
Entity& left;
Entity& right;
enum Operation {PLUS,MINUS,EQUALS,AND,OR,GREATER_OR_EQUALS,LESS_OR_EQUALS};
public:
virtual VARIANT Evaluate() override; // Evaluates left and right operands and combines them
}
class Variable: public Entity {
private:
VARIANT value;
public:
virtual VARIANT Evaluate() override {return value;};
}
Or, you can just write validation code in C++ and use it both in C# and C++ applications :)
My personal choice would be Lua. The downside to any DSL is the learning curve of a new language and how to glue the code with the scripts but I've found Lua has lots of support from the user base and several good books to help you learn.
If you are after making somewhat generic code that a non programmer can inject rules for allowable input it's going to take some upfront work regardless of the route you take. I highly suggest not rolling your own because you'll likely find people wanting more features that an already made DSL will have.
If you are using Java then you can use the Object Graph Navigation Library.
It enables you to write java applications that can parse,compile and evaluate OGNL expressions.
OGNL expressions include basic java,C,C++,C# expressions.
You can compile an expression that uses some variables, and then evaluate that expression
for some given variables.
An easy way to achieve validation of expressions is to use Python's eval method. It can be used to evaluate expressions just like the one you wrote. Python's syntax is easy enough to learn for simple expressions and english-like. Your expression example is translated to:
(value >= 1 and value <= 3) or (value >= 10 and value <= 12)
Code evaluation provided by users might pose a security risk though as certain functions could be used to be executed on the host machine (such as the open function, to open a file). But the eval function takes extra arguments to restrict the allowed functions. Hence you can create a safe evaluation environment.
# Import math functions, and we'll use a few of them to create
# a list of safe functions from the math module to be used by eval.
from math import *
# A user-defined method won't be reachable in the evaluation, as long
# as we provide the list of allowed functions and vars to eval.
def dangerous_function(filename):
print open(filename).read()
# We're building the list of safe functions to use by eval:
safe_list = ['math','acos', 'asin', 'atan', 'atan2', 'ceil', 'cos', 'cosh', 'degrees', 'e', 'exp', 'fabs', 'floor', 'fmod', 'frexp', 'hypot', 'ldexp', 'log', 'log10', 'modf', 'pi', 'pow', 'radians', 'sin', 'sinh', 'sqrt', 'tan', 'tanh']
safe_dict = dict([ (k, locals().get(k, None)) for k in safe_list ])
# Let's test the eval method with your example:
exp = "(value >= 1 and value <= 3) or (value >= 10 and value <= 12)"
safe_dict['value'] = 2
print "expression evaluation: ", eval(exp, {"__builtins__":None},safe_dict)
-> expression evaluation: True
# Test with a forbidden method, such as 'abs'
exp = raw_input("type an expression: ")
-> type an expression: (abs(-2) >= 1 and abs(-2) <= 3) or (abs(-2) >= 10 and abs(-2) <= 12)
print "expression evaluation: ", eval(exp, {"__builtins__":None},safe_dict)
-> expression evaluation:
-> Traceback (most recent call last):
-> File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
-> File "<string>", line 1, in <module>
-> NameError: name 'abs' is not defined
# Let's test it again, without any extra parameters to the eval method
# that would prevent its execution
print "expression evaluation: ", eval(exp)
-> expression evaluation: True
# Works fine without the safe dict! So the restrictions were active
# in the previous example..
# is odd?
def isodd(x): return bool(x & 1)
safe_dict['isodd'] = isodd
print "expression evaluation: ", eval("isodd(7)", {"__builtins__":None},safe_dict)
-> expression evaluation: True
print "expression evaluation: ", eval("isodd(42)", {"__builtins__":None},safe_dict)
-> expression evaluation: False
# A bit more complex this time, let's ask the user a function:
user_func = raw_input("type a function: y = ")
-> type a function: y = exp(x)
# Let's test it:
for x in range(1,10):
# add x in the safe dict
safe_dict['x']=x
print "x = ", x , ", y = ", eval(user_func,{"__builtins__":None},safe_dict)
-> x = 1 , y = 2.71828182846
-> x = 2 , y = 7.38905609893
-> x = 3 , y = 20.0855369232
-> x = 4 , y = 54.5981500331
-> x = 5 , y = 148.413159103
-> x = 6 , y = 403.428793493
-> x = 7 , y = 1096.63315843
-> x = 8 , y = 2980.95798704
-> x = 9 , y = 8103.08392758
So you can control the allowed functions that should be used by the eval method, and have a sandbox environment that can evaluate expressions.
This is what we used in a previous project I worked in. We used Python expressions in custom Eclipse IDE plug-ins, using Jython to run in the JVM. You could do the same with IronPython to run in the CLR.
The examples I used in part inspired / copied from the Lybniz project explanation on how to run a safe Python eval environment. Read it for more details!
You might want to look at Regular-Expressions or RegEx. It's proven and been around for a long time. There's a regex library all the major programming/script languages out there.
Libraries:
C++: what regex library should I use?
C# Regex Class
Usage
Regex Email validation
Regex to validate date format dd/mm/yyyy
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)
I have an Ada enum with 2 values type Polarity is (Normal, Reversed), and I would like to convert them to 0, 1 (or True, False--as Boolean seems to implicitly play nice as binary) respectively, so I can store their values as specific bits in a byte. How can I accomplish this?
An easy way is a lookup table:
Bool_Polarity : constant Array(Polarity) of Boolean
:= (Normal=>False, Reversed => True);
then use it as
B Boolean := Bool_Polarity(P);
Of course there is nothing wrong with using the 'Pos attribute, but the LUT makes the mapping readable and very obvious.
As it is constant, you'd like to hope it optimises away during the constant folding stage, and it seems to: I have used similar tricks compiling for AVR with very acceptable executable sizes (down to 0.6k to independently drive 2 stepper motors)
3.5.5 Operations of Discrete Types include the function S'Pos(Arg : S'Base), which "returns the position number of the value of Arg, as a value of type universal integer." Hence,
Polarity'Pos(Normal) = 0
Polarity'Pos(Reversed) = 1
You can change the numbering using 13.4 Enumeration Representation Clauses.
...and, of course:
Boolean'Val(Polarity'Pos(Normal)) = False
Boolean'Val(Polarity'Pos(Reversed)) = True
I think what you are looking for is a record type with a representation clause:
procedure Main is
type Byte_T is mod 2**8-1;
for Byte_T'Size use 8;
type Filler7_T is mod 2**7-1;
for Filler7_T'Size use 7;
type Polarity_T is (Normal,Reversed);
for Polarity_T use (Normal => 0, Reversed => 1);
for Polarity_T'Size use 1;
type Byte_As_Record_T is record
Filler : Filler7_T;
Polarity : Polarity_T;
end record;
for Byte_As_Record_T use record
Filler at 0 range 0 .. 6;
Polarity at 0 range 7 .. 7;
end record;
for Byte_As_Record_T'Size use 8;
function Convert is new Ada.Unchecked_Conversion
(Source => Byte_As_Record_T,
Target => Byte_T);
function Convert is new Ada.Unchecked_Conversion
(Source => Byte_T,
Target => Byte_As_Record_T);
begin
-- TBC
null;
end Main;
As Byte_As_Record_T & Byte_T are the same size, you can use unchecked conversion to convert between the types safely.
The representation clause for Byte_As_Record_T allows you to specify which bits/bytes to place your polarity_t in. (i chose the 8th bit)
My definition of Byte_T might not be what you want, but as long as it is 8 bits long the principle should still be workable. From Byte_T you can also safely upcast to Integer or Natural or Positive. You can also use the same technique to go directly to/from a 32 bit Integer to/from a 32 bit record type.
Two points here:
1) Enumerations are already stored as binary. Everything is. In particular, your enumeration, as defined above, will be stored as a 0 for Normal and a 1 for Reversed, unless you go out of your way to tell the compiler to use other values.
If you want to get that value out of the enumeration as an Integer rather than an enumeration value, you have two options. The 'pos() attribute will return a 0-based number for that enumeration's position in the enumeration, and Unchecked_Conversion will return the actual value the computer stores for it. (There is no difference in the value, unless an enumeration representation clause was used).
2) Enumerations are nice, but don't reinvent Boolean. If your enumeration can only ever have two values, you don't gain anything useful by making a custom enumeration, and you lose a lot of useful properties that Boolean has. Booleans can be directly selected off of in loops and if checks. Booleans have and, or, xor, etc. defined for them. Booleans can be put into packed arrays, and then those same operators are defined bitwise across the whole array.
A particular pet peeve of mine is when people end up defining themselves a custom boolean with the logic reversed (so its true condition is 0). If you do this, the ghost of Ada Lovelace will come back from the grave and force you to listen to an exhaustive explanation of how to calculate Bernoulli sequences with a Difference Engine. Don't let this happen to you!
So if it would never make sense to have a third enumeration value, you just name objects something appropriate describing the True condition (eg: Reversed_Polarity : Boolean;), and go on your merry way.
It seems all I needed to do was pragma Pack([type name]); (in which 'type name' is the type composed of Polarity) to compress the value down to a single bit.