While reading about Julia on http://learnxinyminutes.com/docs/julia/ I came across this:
# You can define functions that take a variable number of
# positional arguments
function varargs(args...)
return args
# use the keyword return to return anywhere in the function
end
# => varargs (generic function with 1 method)
varargs(1,2,3) # => (1,2,3)
# The ... is called a splat.
# We just used it in a function definition.
# It can also be used in a fuction call,
# where it will splat an Array or Tuple's contents into the argument list.
Set([1,2,3]) # => Set{Array{Int64,1}}([1,2,3]) # produces a Set of Arrays
Set([1,2,3]...) # => Set{Int64}(1,2,3) # this is equivalent to Set(1,2,3)
x = (1,2,3) # => (1,2,3)
Set(x) # => Set{(Int64,Int64,Int64)}((1,2,3)) # a Set of Tuples
Set(x...) # => Set{Int64}(2,3,1)
Which I'm sure is a perfectly good explanation, however I fail to grasp the main idea/benefits.
From what I understand so far:
Using a splat in a function definition allows us to specify that we have no clue how many input arguments the function will be given, could be 1, could be 1000. Don't really see the benefit of this, but at least I understand (I hope) the concept of this.
Using a splat as an input argument to a function does... What exactly? And why would I use it? If I had to input an array's contents into the argument list, I would use this syntax instead: some_array(:,:) (for 3D arrays i would use some_array(:,:,:) etc.).
I think part of the reason why I don't understand this is that I'm struggling with the definition of tuples and arrays, are tuples and arrays data types (like Int64 is a data type) in Julia? Or are they data structures, and what is a data structure? When I hear array I typically think about a 2D matrix, perhaps not the best way to imagine arrays in a programming context?
I realize that you could probably write entire books about what a data structure is, and I could certainly Google it, however I find that people with a profound understanding of a subject are able to explain it in a much more succinct (and perhaps simplified) way then let's say the wikipedia article could, which is why I'm asking you guys (and girls).
You seem like you get the mechanism and how/what they do but are struggling with what you would use it for. I get that.
I find them useful for things where I need to pass an unknown number of arguments and don't want to have to bother constructing an array first before passing it in when working with the function interactively.
for instance:
func geturls(urls::Vector)
# some code to retrieve URL's from the network
end
geturls(urls...) = geturls([urls...])
# slightly nicer to type than building up an array first then passing it in.
geturls("http://google.com", "http://facebook.com")
# when we already have a vector we can pass that in as well since julia has method dispatch
geturls(urlvector)
So a few things to note. Splat's allow you to turn an iterable into an array and vice versa. See the [urls...] bit above? Julia turns that into a Vector with the urls tuple expanded which turns out to be much more useful than the argument splatting itself in my experience.
This is just 1 example of where they've proved useful to me. As you use julia you'll run across more.
It's mostly there to aid in designing api's that feel natural to use.
Related
First question on stackoverflow :)
I'm going through the Ruby course on Codecademy and I'm stuck on something.
fruits = ["orange", "apple", "banana", "pear", "grapes"]
fruits.sort! {|first, second| second <=> first}
print fruits
I don't know how to phrase this question. On Codecademy the assignment was to set up the array to be displayed in reverse on the console. After some research, I was able to figure it out. I understand how it works and the order to put it in the code not why. I'm aware that "<=>" compares two objects, but how do the items within the array become objects when we don't declare them as such?
Secondly, what is the purpose of writing this code in this way when we could do fruits.sort.reverse?
First question: At various points in its operation the sort method has to compare pairs of objects to see what their relative ordering should be. It does the comparison by applying the block you pass to sort, i.e., {|first, second| second <=> first}. Not sure what you mean by "how do the items within the array become objects when we don't declare them as such?". All data in ruby is an object, so there's no declaration or conversion needed given that all variables are object references.
Second question: Yes, you could do fruits.sort.reverse, but that would require additional work after the sort to do the reverse operation. Also, reverse can't handle more complex sorting tasks, such as sorting people by multiple criteria such as gender & last name, or hair color, height, and weight. Writing your own comparator can handle quite complex orderings.
String literals can be used to create string objects in Ruby, there is no need to use the String class to create the object. The following two are equivalent:
"Hello, world!"
String.new("Hello, world!")
More information can be found here.
Secondly, what is the purpose of writing this code in this way when we could do fruits.sort.reverse?
Please contact Codecademy about this, but I suspect it's for learning more about how <=> works.
Is there a simpler way to do apply a function in Julia to nested array than defining a new function? - e.g. for this simple example:
a = collect(1:10)
b = [ a*i for i in 100:100:400]
arraylog(x) = log.(x) ## Need to define an extra function to do the inner array?
arraylog.(b)
I would use a comprehension just like you used it to define b: [log.(x) for x in b].
The benefit of this approach is that such code should be easy to read later.
EDIT
Referring to the answer by Tasos actually a comprehension implicitly defines an anonymous function that is passed to Base.Generator. In this use case a comprehension and map should be largely equivalent.
I assumed that MR_MPI-BGC wanted to avoid defining an anonymous function.
If it were allowed one could also use a double broadcast like this:
(x->log.(x)).(b)
which is even shorer but I thought that it would not be very readable in comparison to a comprehension.
You could define it as a lambda instead.
Obviously the distinction may be moot, depending on how you're using this later in your code, but if all you want is to not waste a line in your code for the sake of conciseness, you could easily dump this inside a map statement, for instance:
map( x->log.(x), b )
or, if you prefer do syntax:
map(b) do x
log.(x)
end
PS. I'm not familiar with a syntax which allows the broadcasted version of a function to be plugged directly into map, but if one exists it would be even cleaner than a lambda here ... but alas 'map( log., b )' is not valid syntax.
Q: Is there a way, in golang, to define a function which accepts an array of arbitrary length as argument?
e.g.,
function demoArrayMagic(arr [magic]int){
....
}
I have understood that in golang, array length is part of the variable type, for this reason the following function is not going to accept one arbitrary array as input
function demoArray(arr [2]int){
....
}
This function is not going to compile with arrInput [6]int as input--i.e., demoArray(arrInput) will fail to compile.
Also the following function, which accepts a slice argument, does not accept arrays as arguments (different types, as expected):
function demoSlice(arr []int){
....
}
i.e., demoSlice(arrInput) does not compile, expects a slice not an array.
The question is, is there a way to define a function that takes arrays of arbitrary length (arrays, NOT slice)? It looks quite strange and limiting for a language to impose this constraint.
The question makes sense independently from the motivation, but, in my case, the reason behind is the following. I have a set of functions which takes as arguments data structures of type [][]int.
I noticed that GOB serialization for them is 10x slower (MB/s) than other data structures I have. I suppose that may be related to the chain of derefencing operations in slices. Moving from slices to array--i.e.,defining objects of type [10000][128]int--may improve situation (I hope).
Regards
P.s: I remind now that Go, passes/uses things 'by value', using arrays may be overkill cause golang is going to copy them lot of times. I think I'll stay with slices and I'll try to understand GOB internals a bit.
There is not. Go does not support generics.
The only way would be to use interface{}, but that would allow to pass a value of any type, not just arrays of your desired type.
Arrays in Go are "secondary". The solution is to use slices for your requirement.
One thing to note here is that you may continue to use arrays, and only slice them when you want to pass them to this function, e.g.:
func main() {
a1 := [1]int{1}
demo(a1[:])
a2 := [2]int{1, 2}
demo(a2[:])
}
func demo(s []int) {
fmt.Println("Passed:", s)
}
Output of the above (try it on the Go Playground):
Passed: [1]
Passed: [1 2]
I've been developing a MathLink application with a function that accepts two lists, e.g.
:Pattern: g[zi_List, fi_List]
which I intended to pull in to the function manually. Both lists can be real or complex with the result being complex if either parameter is complex. Additionally, fi could be a list of square matrices, but zi is to remain a one dimensional list.
Within the MathLink C API, the most straightforward seeming function to use is MLGetReal64Array which can handle both real and complex data types as Complex shows up as the innermost Head of the array. And, once complexity is determined, the array can be cast to std::complex<double> or the C99 complex type, if appropriate. Now, MLGetReal64Array doesn't handle non-rectangular Lists, so each List element must have the dimensionality of the others and be of the same type: real of complex. Oddly, though, with a function that accepts a single List parameter, MLGetReal64Array returns a data structure that has a one element List as its outermost element, i.e. inputing h[ {1, 3, 5} ] returns List[List[1,3,5]] on the c-side of things.
It turns out that for a two list function, like g, a single call to MLGetReal64Array will return both parameters at once, i.e. g receives List[ zi, fi ]. Since I plan on preprocessing each list for uniformity of structure and element type, ensuring that both had the same element type wouldn't be a problem. But, I'd like for fi to be a list of matrices, and MLGetReal64Array causes a MLEGSQ: MLGet() called out of sequence error.
So, my questions are: can I use MLGetReal64Array to get both lists? how would I go about it? And, if I can't use MLGetReal64Array, what are my alternatives?
I'm thinking that if MLGetReal64Array is correct about the structure, I can pop the outer List off the link by using MLGetFunction which would then allow me to use MLGetReal64Array for each parameter. As of yet, I haven't tried it. But, in the meantime, I would appreciate any suggestions.
I'd create separate functions for the different cases you have. It's much easier to handle this logic on the Mathematica side than figure out what you have coming over the link in C.
Is there an elegant way to express
val a = Array.fill(2,10) {1}
def do_to_elt(i:Int,j:Int) {
if (a.isDefinedAt(i) && a(i).isDefinedAt(j)) f(a(i)(j))
}
in scala?
I recommend that you not use arrays of arrays for 2D arrays, for three main reasons. First, it allows inconsistency: not all columns (or rows, take your pick) need to be the same size. Second, it is inefficient--you have to follow two pointers instead of one. Third, very few library functions exist that work transparently and usefully on arrays of arrays as 2D arrays.
Given these things, you should either use a library that supports 2D arrays, like scalala, or you should write your own. If you do the latter, among other things, this problem magically goes away.
So in terms of elegance: no, there isn't a way. But beyond that, the path you're starting on contains lots of inelegance; you would probably do best to step off of it quickly.
You just need to check the array at index i with isDefinedAt if it exists:
def do_to_elt(i:Int, j:Int): Unit =
if (a.isDefinedAt(i) && a(i).isDefinedAt(j)) f(a(i)(j))
EDIT: Missed that part about the elegant solution as I focused on the error in the code before your edit.
Concerning elegance: no, per se there is no way to express it in a more elegant way. Some might tell you to use the pimp-my-library-Pattern to make it look more elegant but in fact it does not in this case.
If your only use case is to execute a function with an element of a multidimensional array when the indices are valid then this code does that and you should use it. You could generalize the method by changing the signature of to take the function to apply to the element and maybe a value if the indices are invalid like this:
def do_to_elt[A](i: Int, j: Int)(f: Int => A, g: => A = ()) =
if (a.isDefinedAt(i) && a(i).isDefinedAt(j)) f(a(i)(j)) else g
but I would not change anything beyond this. This also does not look more elegant but widens your use case.
(Also: If you are working with arrays you mostly do that for performance reasons and in that case it might even be better to not use isDefinedAt but perform validity checks based on the length of the arrays.)