New to Coq, working through Software Foundations. Just discovered the Search command, but it will match anything in the current environment, whereas I really just want to search what things I've proven in the current module (i.e. not anything that's been imported). Something like Search plus inside .. (where '.' would mean "current module only").
I could just exclude every other module, but that's painful.
Related
I'm using mainly Notepad++ for my C++ developing and recently i'm in need for some kind of basic autocompletion, nothing fuzzy, just want to type some letters and get my function declaration instead of having a manual opened all of the time..
The integrated autocompletion feature of my Notepad++ version (6.9.2) gives the declaration of basic C functionality like say fopen and parses my current file user defined functions, but without declaration.
I guess it's normal for a text editor to not give easily such information since it has nothing to parse i.e. other files where your declarations are (as it's not an IDE), but i don't want either to mess again with MSVC just for the sake of autocomplete.
Is there an easy, not so-hackish way to add some basic C++ and/or user defined autocomplete?
UPDATE
Adding declarations the "hard way" in some file cpp.xml is a no-no for me as i have a pretty big base of ever changing declarations. Is there a way to just input say some list of h/cpp files and get declarations? or this falls into custom plugin area ?
Edit the cpp.xml file and add all the keywords and function descriptions you'd like. Just make sure you add them in alphabetical order or they will not show up.
Another option is to select Function and word completion in the Auto-Completion area of the Settings-->Preferences dialog. NPP will suggest every "word" in the current file that starts with the first N letters you type (you choose a value for N in the Auto-Completion controls).
My question is partly liguistic, but very related to programming (of almost anything, web pages or anything else).
I would like to know why word refactor was chosen for changing of program or its part, if else word probably would be more exact and better describing done change.
IDEs (for example NetBeans or Eclipse) use this word only for renaming of any part of chosen program (project), including moving of file to else place (from view of any OS it is probably only renaming).
But renaming is not about changing of factor (because it is something that is not changed when it is renamed).
Closer to meaning of word refactor (as changing of factor) is manual rewriting of any part, when rewritten part has changed behaviour (but not what program does from outer view - as is written in topic What is refactoring and what is only modifying code?).
The word "Refactoring" is derived from mathematics where you find an equivalent expression by applying factoring again. The equivalent expression does not change the final outcome but it is much easier to understand, use, or reuse.
There are many refactoring techniques and renaming is one of them. Other techniques include extract method, extract class, move method, move class, pull/push method to super/sub-class and many more.
This is I suspect, a matter of style and/or personal taste but I thought I'd ask anyway.
I have been in the habit of defining packages thus:
(defpackage :wibble
(:use :cl :drakma)
(:export :main))
Once I have executed IN-PACKAGE (:wibble, in this case), I can then use the symbols in DRAKMA unadorned:
(http-request ...
Then I recently read that seasoned Lisp hackers would rather not :use but:
(drakma:http-request ...
Just wondered what the consensus of opinion was on here and whether there were any pros or cons (not that type of CONS :) ) either way?
Cheers,
Peter
When you use a package, there are a couple subtle ways things might go wrong if the used package changes.
First, the package might export more symbols in the future. If, for example, the package exports a new symbol library:rhombus and you're already using that myapp::rhombus to name something, you are suddenly using the inherited symbol, with all possible attachments (e.g. classes, defuns, macros, etc), with sometimes strange results. If you use qualified symbol names, you will not get any more or any less than the symbols you want.
Second, the package might stop exporting symbols in the future. So if, for example, library:with-rhombus disappears, your call to (with-rhombus (42 42 42) ...) will suddenly get an error for an invalid function call (42 ...) rather than something that points directly to the source of the problem, the "missing" symbol. If you use qualified symbol names, you will get an error along the lines of Symbol WITH-RHOMBUS is not exported from the LIBRARY package which is clearer.
Importing symbols (with :import-from or :shadowing-import-from or import) is not without its own trouble. Importing works on any symbol, regardless of whether it's external or not. So it could be the case that the symbol is now library::rhombus, i.e. not intended for public consumption any more, but importing will still work with no errors.
Which option you use depends on your comfort level with the source package. Do you control it, and you will not make any conflicting changes without thorough testing? Go ahead and import or use to your heart's content. Otherwise, be careful about checking for unintended side-effects as library package interfaces change.
This is more a style issue, so it's impossible to categorize it in black and white, but here are the pros and cons:
Using package-qualified symbols.
Avoids symbol conflicts.
Allows to clearly distinguish foreign symbols.
Allows to easily search, replace, copy,... uses of a certain symbol from the external library (for refactoring, extracting the code to some other place etc.)
Makes code uglier, but only when library names are too long. (For example, I add a nickname re to cl-pprce, and now the code using it is even better, than w/o qualification: think re:scan)
Importing the whole package
Basically, the opposite of the previous case. But I tend to use it with utility libraries, because using qualified names often beats their whole purpose of making code more concise and clear :)
:import-from package symbol
This is one option you've forgotten to mention. I think it may be useful, when you use one or too very distinct symbols from a certain package very frequently. It also allows to import unexported symbols.
Good answers so far.
Another view is that a package and its symbols make up a language. If you think a symbol should be a part of this language, then you should make it available without the need to qualify it with another package - when programming in this language.
For example in the CLIM implementation there is a CLIM-LISP package which sets up the implementation language. It is a variant of the COMMON-LISP package. Then there are packages like CLIM-SYS (resources, processes, locks, ...), CLIM-UTILS (various utilities and extensions of Common Lisp) and CLIM itself. Now in a new package SILICA (an abstract window system) these four packages are used. The implementation of Silica thus is implemented in a language which is built as a union of two languages (the Common Lisp variant CLIM-LISP and the UI commands of CLIM) plus two utility packages which extend CLIM-LISP with some facilities.
In above example it makes sense to use the packages, since they are extending each other to form a new language and the implementation in that new package makes heavy use of those.
If you had a package which needs conflicting packages, then it would not make sense to use them. For example a package could use drawing commands tailored to a GUI and for Postscript output. They would have similar names. Using them both would lead to conflicts. You also want to make clear in the source code for the human reader from where these symbols are coming. Is it a line-drawing command from a postscript or a GTK+ library? Would be great if you can find it out easily - even though the function names are the same.
As a rule of thumb, I :use packages that extend the general language, but use qualified symbols for packages that have some special application. For example, I'd always :use alexandria, but refer fully qualified to symbols from Hunchentoot. When in doubt, I use qualified names.
Analyzing sources of CPAN modules I can see something like this:
...
package # hide from PAUSE
Try::Tiny::ScopeGuard;
...
Obviously, it's taken from Try::Tiny, but I have seen this kind of comments between package keyword and package identifier in other modules too.
Why this procedure is used? What is its goal and what benefits does it have?
It is indeed a hack to hide a package from PAUSE's indexer.
When a distribution is uploaded to PAUSE, the indexer will examine each file in the upload, looking for the names of packages that are included in the distribution. Any indexed packages can show up in CPAN search results.
There are many reasons for not wanting the indexer to discover your packages. Your distribution may have many small or insignificant packages that would clutter up the search results for your module. You may have packages defined in your t (test) directory or some other non-standard directory that are not meant to be installed as part of the distribution. Your distribution may include files from a completely different distribution (that somebody else wrote).
The hack works because the indexer strictly looks for the keyword package and an expression that looks like a package name on the same line.
Nowadays, you can include a META.yml file with your distribution. The PAUSE indexer will look for and respect a no_index specification in this file. But this is a relatively new capability of the indexer so older modules and old-timer CPAN contributors will still use the line break hack.
Here's an example of a no_index spec from Forks::Super
no_index:
directory:
- t
- inc
package:
- Sys::CpuAffinity
- Signals::XSIG
- Signals::XSIG::Default
- Signals::XSIG::TieArray56
Sys::CpuAffinity and Signals::XSIG are separate distributions that are also packaged with Forks::Super. Some of the test scripts contain package declarations (e.g., Arbitrary::Test::Package) that shouldn't be indexed.
Okay, here's another shot at this phenomenon ... I've been whacky-hacking Perl for a dozen years and I've rarely seen this packy hack and possibly simply ignored and never bothered to investigate. One thing seems clear, though. There's some hackish processing going on at PAUSE that's been crafted in the good ol' Perl'n'UNIX school of thought that without the shadow of a doubt involves line-oriented text parsing, so they parse those Perl files, possibly even using grep, but rather perl itself, who knows, to extract package names and then kick of some procedure or get some stats or whatnot. And to trip up this procedure and hack around its ways the author splits the package declaration in two lines so the hacky packy grep job doesn't have a clue that there's a package declared right under its nose and the programmer is happy about his hacky skills and the PAUSE stats or whatever it is they're cobbling together are as they should be. Does that make sense?
I have read the perldoc on modules, but I don't see a recommendation on naming a package so it won't collide with builtin or CPAN module/package names.
In the past, to develop a local Session.pm module, I have created a local directory using my company's name, such as:
package Company::Session;
... and Session.pm would be found in directory Company/.
But I'm just not a fan of this naming convention. I would rather name the package hierarchy closer to the functionality of the code. But that's how it's done on CPAN generally...
I feel like I am missing something fundamental. I also looked in Damian's Perl Best Practices but I may not have been looking in the right place...
Any recommendations on avoiding package namespace collisions the right way?
Update w/ Related Question: if there is a package name conflict, how does Perl choose which one to use? Thanks everyone.
The namespace Local:: has been reserved for just this purpose. No module that starts with that prefix will be accepted to CPAN or the core. Alternatively, you can use an underscore in the top-level name (like My_Corp::Session or just My_Session). All categories with an underscore have also been reserved. (This is mentioned in perlmodlib, under "Select a name for the module".)
Note that both those reservations apply only to the top-level name. For example, there are CPAN modules named Time::Local and Text::CSV_XS. But Local::Time and Text_CSV::XS are reserved names and would not be accepted on CPAN.
Naming modules after your company is fine too. (Well, unless you work for some really generic sounding company.) Using the reverse domain name is probably overkill, unless you intend to distribute your modules to others. (But in that case, you should probably register a normal module name.)
How Perl resolves a conflict:
Perl searches the directories in #INC for a module with the specified name. The first module found is the one used. So the order of directories in #INC determines which module would be used (if you have modules with the same name installed in different locations).
perl -V will report the contents of #INC (the highest-priority directories are listed first). But there are lots of ways to manipulate #INC at runtime, too.
BTW, Raku can handle multiple modules with the same name by different authors, and even use more than one in a single program. That's a different solution.
There is nothing wrong with naming your internal modules after your company; I always do this. 90% of my code ends up on CPAN, so it has "normal" names, but the internal stuff is always starts with ClientName::.
I'm sure everyone else does this too.
What's wrong with just picking a name for your package that you like and then googling "perl the-name-you-picked"?
The #INC variable contains a list of directories to in which to look for modules. It starts with the first entry and then moves on to next if it doesn't find the request module. #INC has a default value that created when perl is compiled, but you can can change it with the PERL5LIB environment variable, the lib pragma, and directly manipulating the #INC array in a BEGIN block:
#!/usr/bin/perl
BEGIN {
#INC = (); #no modules can be found
}
use strict; #error: Can't locate strict.pm in #INC (#INC contains:)
If you need the maximum level of certainty that your module name will not conflict with someone else's you can take a page from Java's book: name the module with the name of the companies domain. So if you work for Example, Inc. and their domain name is example.com, you would name your HTML parser module Com::Example::HTML::Parser or Example::Com::HTML::Parser. The benefit of the first is that if you have multiple subunits they can all have their own name space, but the modules will still sort together:
Com::Example::Biz::FindCustomers
Com::Example::IT::ParseLogs
Com::Example::QA::TestServer
but it does look odd at first.
(I know this post is old, but as I've had to sort this out in the past few months, I thought I'd weigh in)
At work we decided that 'Local::' felt too geographic. CompanyName:: had some problems for us too that aren't development related, I'll skip those, though I will say that CompanyName is long when you have to type it dozens of times.
So we settled on 'Our::'. Sure, we're not 'CPAN Safe' as there could be the day when we want to use a CPAN module with the Our:: prefix. But it feels nice.
Our::Data is our Class::DBI module
Our::App is our generic app framework that does config handling and Getopt stuff
Nice to read and nice to type.