Slicing is a nice idea for defining complex or composite data elements used by several FHIR ressources.
"Within a structure definition, a slice is defined using multiple element entries that share a path but have distinct names. These entries together form a "slice group" with useful featured described in http://www.hl7.org/fhir/2015May/profiling.html.
However in the FHIR ressource "DataElement" itself the use of slicing within the ElementDefinition ist not allowed:
see https://www.hl7.org/fhir/dataelement.html
=> Definition of element, No base allowed, No slicing allowed
What is the reason for not allowing slicing within DataElements?
The purpose of DataElement is to define elements. All data elements defined are stand-alone - they don't inherit from other data elements. As such, there seemed to be no place/utility for slicing. (It exists on DataElement from its use in StructureDefinition.) Do you have a use-case for slicing when defining DataElements?
Related
I have read multiple times the answers in this question about the TArray<T> and the array of T. From what I have understood the use of the first is more versatile than the latter because for a dynamic array I should declare a type like...
type
TMyFlexibleArray = array of Integer;
... that is needed (in certain cases) because I cannot return an array of Integer for example. Instead, of course, I can return a generic type. Dynamic arrays don't have a fixed length and memory for them is reallocated with the SetLength procedure. TArray is a generic class with static methods; the documentation about it states:
You should not create instances of this class, because its only
purpose is to provide sort and search static methods.
They have two different natures/functions but do they have the same result (for example when passed as parameter or when I just need a flexible container)? I see that TArray has also some useful method.
Is is correct if I say that TArray<T> is a dynamic array built with generics and type K = array of T is an own dynamic array (a custom one)? In my question I assume that they are equivalent in their function of being dynamic arrays (and I prefer the generic way just for comfort).
Generic dynamic arrays and non generic dynamic arrays are identical in every way, apart from their generic, or otherwise, nature. That is the single difference.
That difference drives decision making in the few scenarios where one can be used but not the other. For instance:
For reasons outlined in your question, generic arrays are sometimes necessary when working with generic types.
On the other hand, when writing code that you wish to compile on old compilers that pre-date generics, then you cannot use generic arrays.
If this seems obvious, that's because it is. There really is just this one single difference between generic and non-generic arrays.
You also mention the class TArray from System.Generics.Collections. That's a static class containing methods to search and sort arrays. It's completely different from any dynamic array types and something of a distraction here. Although the names are similar, TArray<T> and TArray these are quite different things. Ignore TArray for the purpose of this question.
I'm working with the JSON API format, which has the notion of a data property which can hold either a scalar (single) or array (multiple) value. I'm writing code for encoding and decoding into the format, and when naming my types, was trying to come up with a good name for such types of values. In TypeScript, it would be
type Poly<T> = T | T[];
For your information, here is the relevant part of the JSON API doc (my emphasis):
Primary data MUST be either:
a single resource object, a single resource identifier object, or null, for requests that target single resources
an array of resource objects, an array of resource identifier objects, or an empty array ([]), for requests that target resource collections
As an example, here is a mapping function for such mutant values:
function polymap<T, U>(data: Poly<T>, fn: (input: T) => U, thisArg?: any): Poly<U> {
if (data instanceof Array) return (data as T[]).map(fn, thisArg);
return fn.call(thisArg, data as T);
}
Anyway, as you can see, I'm going with "poly", but is there any established terminology for this, or other good suggestions?
First, the difference between scalars and arrays isn't the number of elements, it's the dimensionality.
Scalars are arrays. Specifically, they're 0-dimensional arrays. So you'd just call all of them arrays.
But note that usually the focus isn't on what values the variable can hold, but what operations are allowed on the variable's potential values.
Some operations can generalize from 1 element to N elements, which seems to be what you want.
The CS-y term for this kind of operation is a "vectorizing operation".
The math term for this kind of operation is a "lifting operation".
I've never heard of anything like this and judging from the fact that the available JSON data types shown here
http://www.tutorialspoint.com/json/json_data_types.htm do not mention anything related to such a data type, I'm betting that this is just smoke and mirrors implemented behind the scenes.
Scalar values and arrays are structured very differently. Combining the two into a true data type would be self contradicting. I'm betting that when the variable is instantiated a method is called somewhere to check the value for an array or scalar value, at which point one of two things takes place. 1- The data type is automatically set as an array and if a scalar is given, it is converted to an array of length 1 and whenever it is called behind the scenes an array is being accessed at index 0. Or 2- The behind the scenes method checks what the data type that was passed in is and sets the same data type for the variable given before instantiation actually takes place.
If a MonoPoly Mohn-O-Pohl-E (if you will because I can't find anything else to call it and it looks like Monopoly) was a scalar and is set to an array data type at some point, the old value can be destroyed and a new one assigned with the same name but as an array. This can happen vise versa and all this can be done behind the scenes as well, making this data type appear to house the description of a scalar along with an array.
is there any established terminology for this, or other good
suggestions?
I'm going to ignore "established terminology", and likely "good" as well, and make the following suggestions on a linguistic basis. My personal choice, due to its sense of one or more rungs and its being the latin origin of scalar, would be:
ladder
Another possible noun:
assemblage
Like constant, I think the following adjectives are ripe to become nouns:
inconstant (similar to incontinent, "insufficient voluntary control" which seem to be what you described you have over this API issue.)
transferable
indiscrete (nicely homophonic to indiscreet)
dual-purpose
multipurpose (the adjective our schools love)
This might even be an oportunity to coin a new word:
polyunary
versutility (my second favorite)
Such functionality is likely replacing a scalar with an array when another element is "added" to a slot. AFAIK there's no term for this, so the question seems more like an English language question.
Try these:
elastic scalar
expandable scalar
scarray (scalar/array)
scalarray (another portmanteau)
arrayable
tardis (holds more than it appears to)
I am wishing to associate object methods with dtypes in a numpy structured array. That is the underlying object instance state of my collection of object is already packed into a numpy (nested dtype) record_arrays..
I already have a set of Python objects, that are constructed on top of views of these numpy structured array dtypes that then operate on this underlying continuously packed object instance data.
That is: I am wishing to use object oriented programming methods, while working with the underlying instance state in it's native packed, structured format.
-> Currently working with these numpy structured arrays using Python object methods, requires that explicitly instantiate a Python object on top of it's associated array view each time I re-reference it within the array..
Might it be possible to more directly associate object methods with a numpy structured array (nested) dtype, so that one could avoid having to reconstruct the object instance each time ??
Your description is confusing. Some basic code might help make it clearer. But I'll throw out some possibly relevant observations.
A numpy array has a (large) continuous data buffer (flat list of bytes), which it divides into 'records'. 'shape' and 'strides' are used to step through the records. 'dtype' determines how it 'views' each record.
While these arrays are a Python object type, and dtype is also a class, in general numpy programmers don't put a lot of effort into constructing added array object classes. The arrays may be attributes of larger objects (dictionaries, lists, tuples, or custom classes).
matrix and masked_arrays are examples of subclassing ndarray. I have not seen many user defined subclasses; in part because the amount of work to make them fully functional isn't worth it. recarray is a subclass that allows you to access fields of a structured array with attribute syntax. It may be worth looking at its 'getattr` method. Getting general array operations to return the correct array class or subclass is a bit tricky.
np.lib.index_tricks defines a few classes that let you use indexing syntax inplace of function syntax (ie. they define custom __getitem__ methods).
I am not aware of ways to subclass dtype. The most general base dtype is 'object'. That just stores a pointer to a Python object that is stored elsewhere. That pointer can point to anything - a number, None, a list, another array, etc. In structured arrays, dtype is a compound type, consisting of 'list' of sub-dtypes (which may be nested). But ultimately the structured dtype consists of multiple basic dtypes (ints, floats, strings, object).
In many languages you can specify that an array is of a certain type. For instance, in Java you could write:
String[] arrayOfStrings;
However in ActionScript 3 it seems that you can only specify that an object is of type Array, for instance:
var myArray:Array;
Is there a way to specify what type of object an AS3 array will contain?
You can use Vector.<String> to store several objects of the given type in an array. Vector is type-safe and is faster than Array so in almost all cases (when it's up to you) you should use Vector instead of Array.
I also recommend reading this article about the various ways to construct a vector. The article is from 2010 (so many Flash Player improvements have been done since then) but much of it still applies and you can download Jackson's test source to run the performance test on the current player.
What distinguishes and object from a struct?
When and why do we use an object as opposed to a struct?
How does an array differ from both, and when and why would we use an array as opposed to an object or a struct?
I would like to get an idea of what each is intended for.
Obviously you can blur the distinctions according to your programming style, but generally a struct is a structured piece of data. An object is a sovereign entity that can perform some sort of task. In most systems, objects have some state and as a result have some structured data behind them. However, one of the primary functions of a well-designed class is data hiding — exactly how a class achieves whatever it does is opaque and irrelevant.
Since classes can be used to represent classic data structures such as arrays, hash maps, trees, etc, you often see them as the individual things within a block of structured data.
An array is a block of unstructured data. In many programming languages, every separate thing in an array must be of the same basic type (such as every one being an integer number, every one being a string, or similar) but that isn't true in many other languages.
As guidelines:
use an array as a place to put a large group of things with no other inherent structure or hierarchy, such as "all receipts from January" or "everything I bought in Denmark"
use structured data to compound several discrete bits of data into a single block, such as you might want to combine an x position and a y position to describe a point
use an object where there's a particular actor or thing that thinks or acts for itself
The implicit purpose of an object is therefore directly to associate tasks with the data on which they can operate and to bundle that all together so that no other part of the system can interfere. Obeying proper object-oriented design principles may require discipline at first but will ultimately massively improve your code structure and hence your ability to tackle larger projects and to work with others.
Generally speaking, objects bring the full object oriented functionality (methods, data, virtual functions, inheritance, etc, etc) whereas structs are just organized memory. Structs may or may not have support for methods / functions, but they generally won't support inheritance and other full OOP features.
Note that I said generally speaking ... individual languages are free to overload terminology however they want to.
Arrays have nothing to do with OO. Indeed, pretty much every language around support arrays. Arrays are just blocks of memory, generally containing a series of similar items, usually indexable somehow.
What distinguishes and object from a struct?
There is no notion of "struct" in OOP. The definition of structures depends on the language used. For example in C++ classes and structs are the same, but class members are private by defaults while struct members are public to maintain compatibility with C structs. In C# on the other hand, struct is used to create value types while class is for reference types. C has structs and is not object oriented.
When and why do we use an object as opposed to a struct?
Again this depends on the language used. Normally structures are used to represent PODs (Plain Old Data), meaning that they don't specify behavior that acts on the data and are mainly used to represent records and not objects. This is just a convention and is not enforced in C++.
How does an array differ from both,
and when and why would we use an
array as opposed to an object or a
struct?
An array is very different. An array is normally a homogeneous collection of elements indexed by an integer. A struct is a heterogeneous collection where elements are accessed by name. You'd use an array to represent a collection of objects of the same type (an array of colors for example) while you'd use a struct to represent a record containing data for a certain object (a single color which has red, green, and blue elements)
Short answer: Structs are value types. Classes(Objects) are reference types.
By their nature, an object has methods, a struct doesn't.
(nothing stops you from having an object without methods, jus as nothing stops you from, say, storing an integer in a float-typed variable)
When and why do we use an object as opposed to a struct?
This is a key question. I am using structs and procedural code modules to provide most of the benefits of OOP. Structs provide most of the data storage capability of objects (other than read only properties). Procedural modules provide code completion similar to that provided by objects. I can enter module.function in the IDE instead of object.method. The resulting code looks the same. Most of my functions now return stucts rather than single values. The effect on my code has been dramatic, with code readability going up and the number of lines being greatly reduced. I do not know why procedural programming that makes extensive use of structs is not more common. Why not just use OOP? Some of the languages that I use are only procedural (PureBasic) and the use of structs allows some of the benefits of OOP to be experienced. Others languages allow a choice of procedural or OOP (VBA and Python). I currently find it easier to use procedural programming and in my discipline (ecology) I find it very hard to define objects. When I can't figure out how to group data and functions together into objects in a philosophically coherent collection then I don't have a basis for creating classes/objects. With structs and functions, there is no need for defining a hierarchy of classes. I am free to shuffle functions between modules which helps me to improve the organisation of my code as I go. Perhaps this is a precursor to going OO.
Code written with structs has higher performance than OOP based code. OOP code has encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism, however I think that struct/function based procedural code often shares these characteristics. A function returns a value only to its caller and only within scope, thereby achieving encapsulation. Likewise a function can be polymorphic. For example, I can write a function that calculates the time difference between two places with two internal algorithms, one that considers the international date line and one that does not. Inheritance usually refers to methods inheriting from a base class. There is inheritance of sorts with functions that call other functions and use structs for data transfer. A simple example is passing up an error message through a stack of nested functions. As the error message is passed up, it can be added to by the calling functions. The result is a stack trace with a very descriptive error message. In this case a message inherited through several levels. I don't know how to describe this bottom up inheritance, (event driven programming?) but it is a feature of using functions that return structs that is absent from procedural programming using simple return values. At this point in time I have not encountered any situations where OOP would be more productive than functions and structs. The surprising thing for me is that very little of the code available on the internet is written this way. It makes me wonder if there is any reason for this?
Arrays are ordered collection of items that (usually) are of the same types. Items can be accessed by index. Classic arrays allow integer indices only, however modern languages often provide so called associative arrays (dictionaries, hashes etc.) that allow use e.g. strings as indices.
Structure is a collection of named values (fields) which may be of 'different types' (e.g. field a stores integer values, field b - string values etc.). They (a) group together logically connected values and (b) simplify code change by hiding details (e.g. changing structure layout don't affect signature of function working with this structure). The latter is called 'encapsulation'.
Theroretically, object is an instance of structure that demonstrates some behavior in response to messages being sent (i.e., in most languages, having some methods). Thus, the very usefullness of object is in this behavior, not its fields.
Different objects can demonstrate different behavior in response to the same messages (the same methods being called), which is called 'polymorphism'.
In many (but not all) languages objects belong to some classes and classes can form hierarchies (which is called 'inheritance').
Since object methods can work with its fields directly, fields can be hidden from access by any code except for this methods (e.g. by marking them as private). Thus encapsulation level for objects can be higher than for structs.
Note that different languages add different semantics to this terms.
E.g.:
in CLR languages (C#, VB.NET etc) structs are allocated on stack/in registers and objects are created in heap.
in C++ structs have all fields public by default, and objects (instances of classes) have all fields private.
in some dynamic languages objects are just associative arrays which store values and methods.
I also think it's worth mentioning that the concept of a struct is very similar to an "object" in Javascript, which is defined very differently than objects in other languages. They are both referenced like "foo.bar" and the data is structured similarly.
As I see it an object at the basic level is a number of variables and a number of methods that manipulate those variables, while a struct on the other hand is only a number of variables.
I use an object when you want to include methods, I use a struct when I just want a collection of variables to pass around.
An array and a struct is kind of similar in principle, they're both a number of variables. Howoever it's more readable to write myStruct.myVar than myArray[4]. You could use an enum to specify the array indexes to get myArray[indexOfMyVar] and basically get the same functionality as a struct.
Of course you can use constants or something else instead of variables, I'm just trying to show the basic principles.
This answer may need the attention of a more experienced programmer but one of the differences between structs and objects is that structs have no capability for reflection whereas objects may. Reflection is the ability of an object to report the properties and methods that it has. This is how 'object explorer' can find and list new methods and properties created in user defined classes. In other words, reflection can be used to work out the interface of an object. With a structure, there is no way that I know of to iterate through the elements of the structure to find out what they are called, what type they are and what their values are.
If one is using structs as a replacement for objects, then one can use functions to provide the equivalent of methods. At least in my code, structs are often used for returning data from user defined functions in modules which contain the business logic. Structs and functions are as easy to use as objects but functions lack support for XML comments. This means that I constantly have to look at the comment block at the top of the function to see just what the function does. Often I have to read the function source code to see how edge cases are handled. When functions call other functions, I often have to chase something several levels deep and it becomes hard to figure things out. This leads to another benefit of OOP vs structs and functions. OOP has XML comments which show up as tool tips in the IDE (in most but not all OOP languages) and in OOP there are also defined interfaces and often an object diagram (if you choose to make them). It is becoming clear to me that the defining advantage of OOP is the capability of documenting the what code does what and how it relates to other code - the interface.