This question concerns phloc-schematron, a library for ISO Schematron validation.
I am creating schematron-files on the fly, so I have them available as document (or as string of course)
I cannot find a constructor for SchematronResourcePure that takes a string or document as argument, nor can I find a method to create a IReadableResource from the same.
Can someone suggest how to do this?
In case this is still relevant:
Switch to ph-schematron at https://github.com/phax/ph-schematron/ and use the static SchematronResourcePure.fromString method.
But you are right - this is a case that is currently not considered - building the Schematron from scratch. I will see, what I can do!
Related
I'd like to modify the lua 5.2 source code to allow for an optional "global" keyword to precede global variable declarations. Has any done this or does anyone know how to do this (safely)? And yes I am aware that variables are global by default and that this would be purely syntactic sugar.
To be clear, adding custom keywords of existing types is straight forward. The part I'm at a loss for is how to safely edit the parser (via the 5.2 C source code) so that it discards or ignores the new "global" keyword.
Figured it out. First I appended a new token TK_GLOBAL to the end of the RESERVED enum.
Then in luaX_init() I added...
ts = luaS_new(L, "global");
luaS_fix(ts);
ts->tsv.reserved = cast_byte(TK_GLOBAL+1-FIRST_RESERVED);
And finally in the statement() function I added...
case TK_GLOBAL:
luaX_next(ls);
break;
As far as I can tell it works. Hopefully it's safe.
See this discussion for details and a proposed patch (against 5.3): http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2018-07/msg00422.html. It uses a different (non-keyword based) approach, but should be a good starting point.
I am learning Ruby, reading few books, tutorials, foruns and so one... so, I am brand new to this.
I am trying to develop a stock system so I can learn doing.
My questions are the following:
I created the following to store transactions: (just few parts of the code)
transactions.push type: "BUY", date: Date.strptime(date.to_s, '%d/%m/%Y'), quantity: quantity, price: price.to_money(:BRL), fees: fees.to_money(:BRL)
And one colleague here suggested to create a Transaction class to store this.
So, for the next storage information that I had, I did:
#dividends_from_stock << DividendsFromStock.new(row["Approved"], row["Value"], row["Type"], row["Last Day With"], row["Payment Day"])
Now, FIRST question: which way is better? Hash in Array or Object in Array? And why?
This #dividends_from_stock is returned by the method 'dividends'.
I want to find all the dividends that were paid above a specific date:
puts ciel3.dividends.find_all {|dividend| Date.parse(dividend.last_day_with) > Date.parse('12/05/2014')}
I get the following:
#<DividendsFromStock:0x2785e60>
#<DividendsFromStock:0x2785410>
#<DividendsFromStock:0x2784a68>
#<DividendsFromStock:0x27840c0>
#<DividendsFromStock:0x1ec91f8>
#<DividendsFromStock:0x2797ce0>
#<DividendsFromStock:0x2797338>
#<DividendsFromStock:0x2796990>
Ok with this I am able to spot (I think) all the objects that has date higher than the 12/05/2014. But (SECOND question) how can I get the information regarding the 'value' (or other information) stored inside the objects?
Generally it is always better to define classes. Classes have names. They will help you understand what is going on when your program gets big. You can always see the class of each variable like this: var.class. If you use hashes everywhere, you will be confused because these calls will always return Hash. But if you define classes for things, you will see your class names.
Define methods in your classes that return the information you need. If you define a method called to_s, Ruby will call it behind the scenes on the object when you print it or use it in an interpolation (puts "Some #{var} here").
You probably want a first-class model of some kind to represent the concept of a trade/transaction and a list of transactions that serves as a ledger.
I'd advise steering closer to a database for this instead of manipulating toy objects in memory. Sequel can be a pretty simple ORM if used minimally, but ActiveRecord is often a lot more beginner friendly and has fewer sharp edges.
Using naked hashes or arrays is good for prototyping and seeing if something works in principle. Beyond that it's important to give things proper classes so you can relate them properly and start to refine how these things fit together.
I'd even start with TransactionHistory being a class derived from Array where you get all that functionality for free, then can go and add on custom things as necessary.
For example, you have a pretty gnarly interface to DividendsFromStock which could be cleaned up by having that format of row be accepted to the initialize function as-is.
Don't forget to write a to_s or inspect method for any custom classes you want to be able to print or have a look at. These are usually super simple to write and come in very handy when debugging.
thank you!
I will answer my question, based on the information provided by tadman and Ilya Vassilevsky (and also B. Seven).
1- It is better to create a class, and the objects. It will help me organize my code, and debug. Localize who is who and doing what. Also seems better to use with DB.
2- I am a little bit shamed with my question after figure out the solution. It is far simpler than I was thinking. Just needed two steps:
willpay = ciel3.dividends.find_all {|dividend| Date.parse(dividend.last_day_with) > Date.parse('10/09/2015')}
willpay.each do |dividend|
puts "#{ciel3.code} has approved #{dividend.type} on #{dividend.approved} and will pay by #{dividend.payment_day} the value of #{dividend.value.format} per share, for those that had the asset on #{dividend.last_day_with}"
puts
end
I have the XML file as given as below
-<fmiModelDescription numberOfEventIndicators="0" variableNamingConvention="structured" generationDateAndTime="2015-06-22T14:46:19Z" generationTool="Dassault Systemes FMU Export from Simulink, ver. 2.1.1 (MATLAB 8.7 (R2014b) 08-Sep-2014)" version="1.4" author="Dan Henriksson" description="S-function with FMI generated from Simulink model BouncingBalls" guid="{76da271a-0d11-469c-bc24-0343629fb38e}" modelName="BouncingBalls_sf" fmiVersion="2.0"> <CoSimulation canHandleVariableCommunicationStepSize="true" modelIdentifier="BouncingBalls_sf"/> <DefaultExperiment stepSize="0.001" stopTime="10.0" startTime="0.0"/> -<ModelVariables>
I want to fetch the attribute value for eg GUID which is given in the above XML,how can i do that using C programming
Well the only valid answer is: use a library!
The probably best one (in terms of feature completeness) is libxml. Use this if there aren't any other concerns. There's good documentation, too.
If you need something small, there are a LOT of options, all with their limitations. I recently created badxml for this purpose. There are many other options, such as ezxml which I discovered just today in a question here.
But as I said, if size is not a concern, just use libxml, because it is widely used, well tested and feature-complete.
I want to generate empty implementations of procedures defined in a header file. Ideally they should return NULL for pointers, 0 for integers, etc, and, in an ideal world, also print to stderr which function was called.
The motivation for this is the need to implement a wrapper that adapts a subset of a complex, existing API (the header file) to another library. Only a small number of the procedures in the API need to be delegated, but it's not clear which ones. So I hope to use an iterative approach, where I run against this auto-generated wrapper, see what is called, implement that with delegation, and repeat.
I've see Automatically generate C++ file from header? but the answers appear to be C++ specific.
So, for people that need the question spelled out in simple terms, how can I automate the generation of such an implementation given the header file? I would prefer an existing tool - my current best guess at a simple solution is using pycparser.
update Thanks guys. Both good answers. Also posted my current hack.
so, i'm going to mark the ea suggestion as the "answer" because i think it's probably the best idea in general. although i think that the cmock suggestion would work very well in tdd approach where the library development was driven by test failures, and i may end up trying that. but for now, i need a quicker + dirtier approach that works in an interactive way (the library in question is a dynamically loaded plugin for another, interactive, program, and i am trying to reverse engineer the sequence of api calls...)
so what i ended up doing was writing a python script that calls pycparse. i'll include it here in case it helps others, but it is not at all general (assumes all functions return int, for example, and has a hack to avoid func defs inside typedefs).
from pycparser import parse_file
from pycparser.c_ast import NodeVisitor
class AncestorVisitor(NodeVisitor):
def __init__(self):
self.current = None
self.ancestors = []
def visit(self, node):
if self.current:
self.ancestors.append(self.current)
self.current = node
try:
return super(AncestorVisitor, self).visit(node)
finally:
if self.ancestors:
self.ancestors.pop(-1)
class FunctionVisitor(AncestorVisitor):
def visit_FuncDecl(self, node):
if len(self.ancestors) < 3: # avoid typedefs
print node.type.type.names[0], node.type.declname, '(',
first = True
for param in node.args.params:
if first: first = False
else: print ',',
print param.type.type.names[0], param.type.declname,
print ')'
print '{fprintf(stderr, "%s\\n"); return 0;}' % node.type.declname
print '#include "myheader.h"'
print '#include <stdio.h>'
ast = parse_file('myheader.h', use_cpp=True)
FunctionVisitor().visit(ast)
UML modeling tools are capable of generating default implementation in the language of choice. Generally there is also a support for importing source code (including C headers). You can try to import your headers and generate source code from them. I personally have experience with Enterprise Architect and it supports both of these operations.
Caveat: this is an unresearched answer as I haven't had any experience with it myself.
I think you might have some luck with a mocking framework designed for unit testing. An example of such a framework is: cmock
The project page suggests it will generate code from a header. You could then take the code and tweak it.
I only wanted to allow one instance of my C extension class to be made, so I wanted to include the singleton module.
void Init_mousetest() {
VALUE mouseclass = rb_define_class("MyMouse",rb_cObject);
rb_require("singleton");
VALUE singletonmodule = rb_const_get(rb_cObject,rb_intern("Singleton"));
rb_include_module(mouseclass,singletonmodule);
rb_funcall(singletonmodule,rb_intern("included"),1,mouseclass);
### ^ Why do I need this line here?
rb_define_method(mouseclass,"run",method_run,0);
rb_define_method(mouseclass,"spawn",method_spawn,0);
rb_define_method(mouseclass,"stop",method_stop,0);
}
As I understand it, what that line does is the same as Singleton.included(MyMouse), but if I try to invoke that, I get
irb(main):006:0> Singleton.included(MyMouse)
NoMethodError: private method `included' called for Singleton:Module
from (irb):6
from C:/Ruby19/bin/irb:12:in `<main>'
Why does rb_include_module behave differently than I would expect it to? Also any tangential discussions/explanations or related articles are appreciated. Ruby beginner here.
Also it seems like I could have just kept my extension as simple as possible and just hack some kind of interface later on to ensure I only allow one instance. Or just put my mouse related methods into a module... Any of that make sense?
according to http://www.groupsrv.com/computers/about105620.html the rb_include_module() is actually just Module#append_features.
Apparently Module#include calls Module#append_features and Module#included. So in our C code we must also call included. Since clearly something important happens there.