I know in stackoverflow it has many people asked deadly diamond problem already, but the question that they asked is not what I want to ask, so could anyone please tell me what is the solution when I encounter this kind of problem.
The following picture (A) is a typical diamond problem , and (B) is the solution that change musician and actor from class to interface for achieving multiple inheritance. But what I want to ask is, how about if I also need musician and actor class? In general not all people are both musician and actor, some are only musician and some are only actor, if I change these 2 classes to interfaces, is that means if I need musician, I use Performer class to create object also? If so, why should I create Musician and Actor interface? Even consider future inheritance problem, as shown in (C), I don't think interface can help any code reusable, the only thing can help is about restrict person it must obey what musician interface have. I really get confuse of these 2 questions, can anyone please tell me in detail? Thank you very much for your help.
diamond problem image shown
Related
I want to write a quiz/interview game where the flow is like this:
"Alexa, start Movie Trivia."
Welcome to Movie Trivia. Do you need to hear the rules?
"No."
What category would you like to play? Comedy, drama, or animation?
"Comedy."
Question 1. In what year was Star Wars released? A, 1970. B, 1977. C, 1980.
"B."
Correct. Your score is 1. Question 2...
I managed to write spaghetti code to accomplish this, with lots of if session.attributes.category, if session.attributes.needsRules, etc stuff, 3 pages of nested if-elsing.
I'm using Node and the official Alexa SDK, so I read its documentation cover to cover, but it's quite confusing and broken in places (examples that haven't worked since June, instructions for old UIs and so on). My question is: what kind of flow is 'correct'/traditional for something like this?
In the code I was writing, I used elicitSlot a lot, which is nice because it lets me listen solely for the things I expect to hear (eg answerType "A", "B", "C"). But elicitSlot leads to you re-triggering the same intent. So would it be a matter of having each intent check if a slot is filled, and if not, speak a question and elicit that slot, and if so, set a session attribute and then forward to a different intent?
That seems sloppy. Maybe the solution is to define an askingRulesState, askingCategoryState, askingQuestionState, etc, each with only a single handler. But states with only a single handler seems... wrong?
If I'm going to ask the user a question like "What category would you like to play?", does that mean I need to create a SetCategoryIntent? And if so, how would I prevent the user from triggering that intent except when I want them to?
I realise this is a bit of a big vague question but it's really difficult for me to boil it down to something smaller and clearer, since my issue is that the flow in general is really disorienting to me. I'd appreciate even the smallest tip!
You might have a look here, this will handle a lot of the if else's and elicit slots you wrote. For the questions and such you wil indeed probably have to make a state so you can check if you are in question asking state or just in the set-up state. This will help your skill deter men what it has to do. (don't forget to ALWAYS put this state back in because Alexa is tricky if you do not do this sometimes. You can find more info over here. This also looks like a pretty good example of what you are trying to make.
Hope this helps you forward a bit.
How can I detect closed routes (circles) following different types of edges in OrientDB?
Let me give an example. I have two types of vertices, Ideas and Persons, and I have two types of edges, submitted_by and commented_by. No I want to find all "co-commented" ideas. Two ideas are co-commented if the submitter of the one idea is the commentator of the other. My approach was to follow the outgoing commentator-edges, see what ideas these persons submitted, following again the commentators to these ideas and see whether the original idea is among these. My problem is that OrientDB doesn't allow me to use aliases for "from-expressions" like class names, and so I cannot compare the id of the first idea with the ids of the ideas I get when following the edges.
I have to say, that I'am completely new to OrientDB and also to GraphDBs in general. So maybe there is a simple answer to that problem. But an answer would definitely help me to better understand how you typically work with OrientDB and maybe that answer might be helpful for others as well.
I was wondering the following, if I have these two Models:
Author
Book
And every author has written a few books, together with some other authors.
So basically every book has:
Title
MainAuthor
CoAuthor
Now in my application I need to check a lot if a Auther is either a MainAuthor or a CoAuthor. My idea was to create a method in the Author model to check this.
So basically, I can do something like this:
$this->Author->hasWritten($bookId)
However, I was wondering, what do you think of this approuch, and how would you do this?
It seems correcto to me to do that, but I think a Book could has two main Authors or maybe more, and other many more CoAuthors.
In your explanation, I understood that one Book only have one MainAuthor and one CoAuthor. If that is realy the system it's fine like you describe, but If it's like I write you have to think in creating an Help table.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I know that it's still an open problem so I don't expect to see complete answers here. I just want to find some approaches to solve the next problem:
I have a model (assume that is's bot's memory), and different words are associated with different objects in the model. Speaking with the bot is like executing sql-queries with a DB. Language is a very hard formalizable protocol. And we can't just write a million lines of code to implement some real language. But I believe that it's absolutely possible to implement some self-learning mechanism. How can it be implemented? Is it possible to implement learning "from scratch" or "from few basic words"? Just want to hear your ideas.
Actually, English is a very strict language and it's one of the easiest languages for experimenting with AI. Many other languages allow you to change the order of words (for example). And in some cases changed order can change the whole meaning or just add some intonation. I really don't have any ideas how to teach a bot for these things.
The first step, in taking this game to the next level, is ...
...to have a very clear view of prior art!
(and pardon me to say, the question doesn't suggest that you have such an extensive insight into the matter [and you're not alone, count me in ;-)])
Even, and maybe in particular, if your intention is to apply completely novel techniques and models, it seems important to review the literature on current and past practices. Aside from possibly identifying elements that may be adapted or reused in a new implementation, a survey of the domain will provide an keen understanding of the nature of the problem[s].
I've personally tried -on various and multiple occasions!- either the naive approach or the sophomoric approach to tackling broadly-defined problems. With the naive approach, one has but a very slight idea of the true nature and scope of the problem. The sophomoric sees us better equipped with domain knowledge and also with related tools, but this can also be misleading because without a deeper understanding, we tend to mis-read/mis-understand new material offered to us and also misuse some of the tools (a bit like the the fellow who's "good with a hammer" for whom many things look like a nail...)
It is particularly easy to make these mistakes in the field of NLP. That's because
Common sense seems to be all is required: after all a child, who's native tongue is English understands subtleties like
"He's not really an expert"
"He's really not an expert" (small wink at the OP's reference to the ordering of word in the English language)
We live in such exciting times, technology and knowledge wise: Processing power, programming language and tools, mathematical techniques, availability of affordable corpora... to name a few of these things that make this moment in time so special.
Far from me the idea of discouraging you in your chat-bot endeavor, I just hope that this long and generic exposé will encourage to look-before-you-leap, as this will truly save you time in the long run, I think in two ways:
provide you some frames of references (again, even if your intention is to "think outside these boxes")
maybe entice you to redefine the problem, for example by limiting it to particular domains of conversation (sports, or health, or life at a particular university campus...) or by focusing on a particular aspect of the problem (semantic awareness, smooth, natural sounding grammar, use of colloquial forms...)
Good luck ;-)
Check out MegaHAL's implementation for some ideas. We've used a variant of this bot for ages in an IRC channel of ours, and he does on occasion appear to be the intelligent mixture of many of our dominant personalities.
You "train" the bot -
each time the bot answer, you rank (or the tester) the answer - if the answer is good/logical - give high rank, if the answer is bad... low/negative rank.
use the ranking in the future to choose the answer, and this is how the bot learns...
There's a great description of Eliza in Paradigms of AI Programming. You should be able to implement a simple Eliza bot in a few days of work.
This isn't a learning algorithm, but it's surprising how realistic answers can be from something so simple.
You can create your own chat bot on BOT libre, http://www.botlibre.com.
The bots learns, can be trained, can be scripted, and your can program them, or let them program themselves.
Thew site supports embedding your bot on your own site, has REST API access, Android, IRC, Twitter. Free hosting, even for commercial bots.
AIML from the AliceBot project may help you out. It's a whole XML schema (if that doesn't put you off) for the branch of AI its concerned with.
An example from Wikipedia:
<category>
<pattern>WHAT IS YOUR NAME</pattern>
<template>My name is <bot name="name"/>.</template>
</category>
RebbeccaAIML is one quite well documented implementation.
I would like to know if there are any tools that can help me model C applications i.e. Functional programming.
E.g. I'm currently building a shared library.
But to communicate my design visually, I need something like UML. I would like to do this so that the person reviewing my design need not read through 100s of pages of functions, variables and so on.
I have read about UML for C, which I'm considering.
If there is anything better out there, please let me know.
The bottom line is to visualize the design of C applications and modules without reading through 100s of pages of text, because it takes time and is difficult for the reviewers.
Any help in this area from the experts here would be much appreciated.
Thanks.
A well written text documentation brings you a far. Much further than any UML diagram could ever achieve.
You should split this in two parts:
What do you want to say?
What's the best way to saying it?
Whatever formalism you use to answer the second part, you should be sure it's not ambigous.
The good of UML is that a lot of semantic is already defined by the language so you don't have to include a definition of what those boxes, lines and arrows mean in a collaboration diagram.
But most importantly, documenting something means create a path for others to understand the subject you are documenting. A very precise description that offers no clue on how to read it is as good as none. So, use UML, Finite state machines, ER diagrams, plain English, whatever you want but be sure to include a logical path that your "readers" can follow to understand what's going on.
I had a friend that was a fan of "preciseness at all cost" and it would ask us to go through all the details before some sort of meaning would emerge.
I once ask him to do this experiment: on his next trip to an unknown city, he would have to carry the most precise map he could get. Much better, he would have to carry a 1:1 map of the city with every single detail exactly reported in scale. That way he couldn't get lost!
He declined but I would love to see him trying to use that map. Just even folding it! :)
Whatever you like. It's not a standard but many devs use it and understand it. If it does help you to communicate with other people and document your work -> its for you. If it just takes too much time and you think it's not effective, drop it. Also, don't bother with all details, as long as it resembles UML and your team can work with it, it's fine.
It's meant to help you, not waste you time.