How can I get the following Julia code to work (counting adults in a house) using count() instead of the for loop?
mutable struct Person
age
end
mutable struct House
people::Array{Person}
end
function Adults(h::House)
numAdults = 0
for n in 1:length(h.people)
if h.people[n].age > 18; numAdults = numAdults + 1; end
end
numAdults
# count(h.people.age > 18, h.people) is there some variant of this that works?
end
p1 = Person(10)
p2 = Person(40)
h1 = House([p1, p2])
Adults(h1)
There's nothing wrong with a for loop in Julia! It's often just as fast (if not faster) than the equivalent "vectorized" version. That said, it can be nice to use higher order functions at times to make your code more concise. In this case, you want to pass an anonymous function to count that computes the comparison you want for a single element.
julia> f = (x->x.age > 18)
#7 (generic function with 1 method)
julia> f(p1)
false
julia> f(p2)
true
You can pass this to any of Julia's higher order functions and it'll apply it to each element as it does its operations:
julia> count(x->x.age > 18, h1.people)
1
julia> map(x->x.age > 18, h1.people)
2-element Array{Bool,1}:
0
1
julia> filter(x->x.age > 18, h1.people)
1-element Array{Person,1}:
Person(40)
(As an aside, you may want to ensure your struct fields are concretely typed for the best performance; that'll similarly affect performance for both the for loop and count.)
It's only syntactic sugar for an anonymous function, but you can use a do block:
function adults(h::House)
return count(h.people) do person
person.age > 18
end
end
Closer to what you wrote in the comment is
adults(h::House) = count(getproperty.(h.people, :age) .> 18)
But this is somewhat less readable (there's no sugar for property broadcasting), and construct an unnecessary intermediate array.
There's a somewhat intermediate form using a generator, which doesn't add excessive memory:
adults(h::House) = count(person.age > 18 for person in h.people)
This is probably what I'd go for.
Finally, let it be said that of all versions, the one you wrote is not really less idiomatic, and will most likely be the fastest of all in a micro-benchmark, although I'd write it like this:
function adults(h::House)
count = 0
for i in eachindex(h.people)
count += Int(h.people[i].age > 18)
end
return count
end
Finally finally: this function is a natural map-reduce task, opening more possibilities if you go for purely functional approaches (like using Transducers or #distributed for).
When I try to compile my code using -fcheck=all I get a runtime error since it seems I step out of bounds of my array dimension size. It comes from the part of my code shown below. I think it is because my loops over i,j only run from -ny to ny, -nx to nx but I try to use points at i+1,j+1,i-1,j-1 which takes me out of bounds in my arrays. When the loop over j starts at -ny, it needs j-1, so it immediately takes me out of bounds since I'm trying to access -ny-1. Similarly when j=ny, i=-nx,nx.
My question is, how can I fix this problem efficiently using minimal code?
I need the array grad(1,i,j) correctly defined on the boundary, and it needs to be defined exactly as on the right hand side of the equality below, I just don't know an efficient way of doing this. I can explicitly define grad(1,nx,j), grad(1,-nx,j), etc, separately and only loop over i=-nx+1,nx-1,j=-ny+1,ny-1 but this causes lots of duplicated code and I have many of these arrays so I don't think this is the logical/efficient approach. If I do this, I just end up with hundreds of lines of duplicated code that makes it very hard to debug. Thanks.
integer :: i,j
integer, parameter :: nx = 50, ny = 50
complex, dimension (3,-nx:nx,-ny:ny) :: grad,psi
real, parameter :: h = 0.1
do j = -ny,ny
do i = -nx,nx
psi(1,i,j) = sin(i*h)+sin(j*h)
psi(2,i,j) = sin(i*h)+sin(j*h)
psi(3,i,j) = sin(i*h)+sin(j*h)
end do
end do
do j = -ny,ny
do i = -nx,nx
grad(1,i,j) = (psi(1,i+1,j)+psi(1,i-1,j)+psi(1,i,j+1)+psi(1,i,j-1)-4*psi(1,i,j))/h**2 &
- (psi(2,i+1,j)-psi(2,i,j))*psi(1,i,j)/h &
- (psi(3,i,j+1)-psi(3,i,j))*psi(1,i,j)/h &
- psi(2,i,j)*(psi(1,i+1,j)-psi(1,i,j))/h &
- psi(3,i,j)*(psi(1,i,j+1)-psi(1,i,j))/h
end do
end do
If I was to do this directly for grad(1,nx,j), grad(1,-nx,j), it would be given by
do j = -ny+1,ny-1
grad(1,nx,j) = (psi(1,nx,j)+psi(1,nx-2,j)+psi(1,nx,j+1)+psi(1,nx,j-1)-2*psi(1,nx-1,j)-2*psi(1,nx,j))/h**2 &
- (psi(2,nx,j)-psi(2,nx-1,j))*psi(1,nx,j)/h &
- (psi(3,nx,j+1)-psi(3,nx,j))*psi(1,nx,j)/h &
- psi(2,nx,j)*(psi(1,nx,j)-psi(1,nx-1,j))/h &
- psi(3,nx,j)*(psi(1,nx,j+1)-psi(1,nx,j))/h
grad(1,-nx,j) = (psi(1,-nx+2,j)+psi(1,-nx,j)+psi(1,-nx,j+1)+psi(1,-nx,j-1)-2*psi(1,-nx+1,j)-2*psi(1,-nx,j))/h**2 &
- (psi(2,-nx+1,j)-psi(2,-nx,j))*psi(1,-nx,j)/h &
- (psi(3,-nx,j+1)-psi(3,-nx,j))*psi(1,-nx,j)/h &
- psi(2,-nx,j)*(psi(1,-nx+1,j)-psi(1,-nx,j))/h &
- psi(3,-nx,j)*(psi(1,-nx,j+1)-psi(1,-nx,j))/h
end do
One possible way for you could be using an additional index variable for the boundaries, modified from the original index to avoid getting out-of-bounds. I mean something like this:
do j = -ny,ny
jj = max(min(j, ny-1), -ny+1)
do i = -nx,nx
ii = max(min(i, nx-1), -nx+1)
grad(1,i,j) = (psi(1,ii+1,j)+psi(1,ii-1,j)+psi(1,i,jj+1)+psi(1,i,jj-1)-4*psi(1,i,j))/h**2 &
- (psi(2,ii+1,j)-psi(2,ii,j))*psi(1,i,j)/h &
- (psi(3,i,jj+1)-psi(3,i,jj))*psi(1,i,j)/h &
- psi(2,i,j)*(psi(1,ii+1,j)-psi(1,ii,j))/h &
- psi(3,i,j)*(psi(1,i,jj+1)-psi(1,i,jj))/h
end do
end do
It's hard for me to write a proper code because it seems you trimmed part of the original expression in the code you presented in the question, but I hope you understand the idea and apply it correctly for your logic.
Opinions:
Even though this is what you are asking for (as far as I understand), I would not recommend doing this before profiling and checking if assigning the boundary conditions manually after a whole array operation wouldn't be more efficient, instead. Maybe those extra calculations on the indices on each iteration could impact on performance (arguably less than if conditionals or function calls). Using "ghost cells", as suggested by #evets, could be even more performant. You should profile and compare.
I'd recommend you declaring your arrays as dimension(-nx:nx,-ny:ny,3) instead. Fortran stores arrays in column-major order and, as you are accessing values on the neighborhood of the "x" and "y", they would be non-contiguous memory locations for a fixed "other" dimension is the leftest, and that could mean less cache-hits.
In somewhat pseudo-code, you can do
do j = -ny, ny
if (j == -ny) then
p1jm1 = XXXXX ! Some boundary condition
else
p1jm1 = psi(1,i,j-1)
end if
if (j == ny) then
p1jp1 = YYYYY ! Some other boundary condition
else
p1jp1 = psi(1,i,j+1)
end if
do i = -nx, ny
grad(1,i,j) = ... term involving p1jm1 ... term involving p1jp1 ...
...
end do
end do
The j-loop isn't bad in that you are adding 2*2*ny conditionals. The inner i-loop is adding 2*2*nx conditionals for each j iteration (or 2*2*ny * 2*2*nx conditional). Note, you need a temporary for each psi with the triplet indices are unique, ie., psi(1,i,j+1), psi(1,i,j-1), and psi(3,i,j+1).
Is there any programming language that has a do-until loop?
Example:
do
{
<statements>
}
until (<condition>);
which is basically equivalent to:
do
{
<statements>
}
while (<negated condition>);
NOTE: I'm looking for post-test loops.
Ruby has until.
i=0
begin
puts i
i += 1
end until i==5
VBA!
Do-Until-Loop
Do-Loop-Until
Although I think quite a number of people here would doubt if it is a real language at all, but well, BASIC is how Microsoft started (quite weak argument for many, I know)...
It is possible in VB.Net
bExitFromLoop = False
Do
'Executes the following Statement
Loop Until bExitFromLoop
It is also possible in SDF-P on BS2000 (Fujitsu/Siemens Operating System)
/ DECLARE-VARIABLE A
/ DECLARE-VARIABLE SWITCH-1(TYPE=*BOOLEAN)
/ SET-VARIABLE A = 5
/ SET-VARIABLE SWITCH-1 = ON
/ REPEAT
/ A = A + 10
/ IF (A > 50)
/ SET-VARIABLE SWITCH-1 = OFF
/ END-IF
/ UNTIL (SWITCH-1 = OFF)
/ SHOW-VARIABLE A
A = 55
Is is also possible is C or C++ using a macro that define until
Example (definition):
#define until(cond) while(!(##cond))
Example (utilisation):
int i = 0;
do {
cout << i << "\n";
i++;
} until(i == 5);
In VB we can find something like:
Reponse = InputBox("Please Enter Pwd")
Do Until Reponse = "Bob-pwr148" ...
Eiffel offers you an until loop.
from
x := 1
until
x > 100
loop
...
end
There is also an "across" loop as well. Both are very powerful and expressive.
The design of this loop has more to offer. There are two more parts to its grammar that will help us resolve two important "correctness" problems.
Endless loop protection.
Iteration failure detection.
Endless Loop Protection
Let's modify our loop code a little by adding a loop variant.
from
x := 1
v := 1_000
until
x > 100
variant
v
loop
...
v := v - 1
end
The loop variant is (essentially) a count-down variable, but not just any old variable. By using the variant keyword, we are telling the compiler to pay attention to v. Specifically, the compiler is going to generate code that watchdogs the v variable for two conditions:
Does v decrease with each iteration of the loop (are we counting down). It does no good to try and use a count-down variable if it is (in fact) not counting down, right? If the loop variant is not counting down (decreasing by any amount), then we throw an exception.
Does v ever reach a condition of less than zero? If so, then we throw an exception.
Both of these work together through the compiler and variant variable to detect when and if our iterating loop fails to iterate or iterates too many times.
In the example above, our code is communicating to us a story that it expects to iterate zero to 1_000 times, but not more. If it is more, then we stop the loop, which leaves us to wonder: Do we really have cases were we iterate more than 1_000 times, or is there something wrong that our condition is failing to become True?
Loop Invariant
Now that we know what a loop variant is, we need to understand what a loop invariant is.
The invariant is a set of one or more Boolean conditions that must hold True after each iteration through the loop. Why do we want these?
Imagine you have 1_000_000 iterations and one of them fails. You don't have time to walk through each iteration, examining it to see it is okay or not. So, you create a set of one or more conditions that are tested upon completion of each iteration. If the one or all of the conditions fail, then you know precisely which iteration (and its deterministic state) is causing the problem!
The loop invariant might look something like:
from
x := 1
y := 0
v := 1_000
invariant
y = x - 1
until
x > 100
variant
v
loop
...
x := x + 1
y := y + 1
v := v - 1
end
In the example above, y is trailing x by 1. We expect that after each iteration, y will always be x - 1. So, we create a loop invariant using the invariant keyword that states our Boolean assertion. If y fails to be x - 1, the loop will immediately throw an exception and let us know precisely which iteration has failed to keep the assertion True.
CONCLUSION
Our loop is now quite tight and secure—well guarded against failure (bugs, errors).