I think the correct description for what I'm trying to do is be able to pass an expression or function/handler into another handler as a parameter/argument. Some code to be evaluated inside the receiving handler. Similar to Javascript callbacks, I think.
For example, something like this:
on waitFor(theConditionExpression)
timeout_start(5) -- start a 5 second timer
repeat until (theConditionExpression or timeout_isExpired())
delay 0.1
end repeat
return theConditionExpression
end waitFor
theConditionExpression should be some expression or function that evaluates to a boolean result.
not really relevant to the question, but just FYI, timeout_start(…) and timeout_isExpired() are two simple handlers I've written that do exactly what they say. (…start() doesn't return anything, …isExpired() returns a boolean).
Of course, typically if I pass in some boolean expression, it will evaluate that expression once, at the time I pass it in. But I want it to evaluate it every time it's referenced in the code inside the handler.
Some languages (not sure about AS) have some kind of eval() function that you can pass it some code as a string and it will execute that string as code. Theoretically that could solve this, but: (a) I don't know if AS has anything like that, but even if it does, (b) it's not desired for various reasons (performance, injection risks, etc.)
So I'm thinking something more like eg. JavaScript's ability to pass in a function (named or anonymous) as function parameter/argument that can be re-evaluated every iteration in a loop, etc. (eg. like the compareFn argument in JS's Array.sort(compareFn)).
Can AS do anything like this, and if so how?
Thanks!
I'm going to suggest (pro forma) that an AppleScript application with an on idle handler is generally a better solution for wait conditions than a repeat/delay loop. It's more efficient for the system, and doesn't freeze up the script. But that would involve reconceptualizing your script, and I'm not certain it would work in this case, given the way you formed the problem.
There's an old but good site called AppleScript Power Handlers that shows a bunch of nifty-neato tricks for sophisticated use of AppleScript handlers: passing handlers as values or parameters; creating Script Objects within handlers; making closures and constructors. I'm pretty sure the answer to your request is in there. aLikely you'll want to set up a bunch of handlers that serve as condition expressions, then pass them as parameters to the evaluating handler. Or maybe you'll want to set up a script object containing the condition handlers and call it as needed?
At any rate, see what you can do with it, and ask more specific questions if you run into problems.
Related
We want to be able to provide a predefined list of things to be done at the end of every SystemVerilog test. Since multiple people are working on this project, it'd be nice if they did not have to think about the things we are doing in the background, but simply call $finish at the end of a test as usual. I know we could create our own custom $finish macro, but we would prefer to not have to change preexisting tests.
Is there any way in SystemVerilog to have a block of code run after a $finish call? Using something like UVM is not an option. I've looked around, but I can't seem to find something that does this behavior.
The final keyword can help you out here. Refer to IEEE Std 1800-2017, section 9.2.3 Final procedures:
A final procedure executes when simulation ends due to an explicit or
implicit call to $finish .
One limitation is that it executes in zero time, which means you can not have any delays, etc. Read the full description for all the details.
Example:
final begin
$display("something");
do_something();
end
If the list of things does not consume time, a final block is the antithesis of an initial block, except it cannot consume any time. Otherwise, it would not be the "final" thing.
If you need steps that consume time, there is no way of doing this without modifying the existing tests. The simplest approach is declaring a global event like test_done in a package p, and then replacing $finish; with ->p::test_done;. But sometimes you need to shut down other free-running process. Doing that requires much more coordination, which is exactly what UVM accomplishes with its phases and objections mechanism.
First, I have had a look at this excellent article already.
I have a MATLAB script, called sdp. I have another MATLAB script called track. I run track after sdp, as track uses some of the outputs from sdp. To run track I need to call a function called action many many times. I have action defined as a function in a separate MATLAB file. Each call of this action has some inputs, say x1,x2,x3, but x2,x3are just "data" which will never change. They were the same in sdp, same in track, and will remain the same in action. Here, x2,x3 are huge matrices. And there are many of them (think like x2,x3,...x10)
The lame way is to define x2,x3 as global in sdp and then in track, so I can call action with only x1. But this slows down my performance incredibly. How can I call action again and again with only x1 such that it remembers what x2,x3 are? Each call is very fast, and if I do this inline for example, it is super fast.
Perhaps I can use some persistent variables. But I don't understand exactly if they are applicable to my example. I don't know how to use them exactly either.
Have a look at object oriented programming in Matlab. Make an action object where you assign the member variables x2 ... to the results from sdp. You can then call a method of action with only x1. Think of the object as a function with state, where the state information in your case are the constant results of sdp.
Another way to do this would be to use a functional approach where you pass action to track as a function handle, where it can operate on the variables of track.
Passing large matrices in MATLAB is efficient. Semantically it uses call-by-value, but it's implemented as call-by-reference until modified. Wrap all the unchanging parameters in a struct of parameters and pass it around.
params.x2 = 1;
params.x3 = [17 39];
params.minimum_velocity = 19;
action('advance', params);
You've already discovered that globals don't perform well. Don't worry about the syntactic sugar of hiding variables somewhere... there are advantages to clearly seeing where the inputs come from, and performance will be good.
This approach also makes it easy to add new data members, or even auxiliary metadata, like a description of the run, the time it was executed, etc. The structs can be combined into arrays to describe multiple runs with different parameters.
I need to build a mini version of the programming blocks that are used in Scratch or later in snap! or openblocks.
The code in all of them is big and hard to follow, especially in Scratch which is written in some kind of subset of SmallTalk, which I don't know.
Where can I find the algorithm they all use to parse the blocks and transform it into a set of instructions that work on something, such as animations or games as in Scratch?
I am really interested in the algorithmic or architecture behind the concept of programming blocks.
This is going to be just a really general explanation, and it's up to you to work out specifics.
Defining a block
There is a Block class that all blocks inherit from. They get initialized with their label (name), shape, and a reference to the method. When they are run/called, the associated method is passed the current context (sprite) and the arguments.
Exact implementations differ among versions. For example, In Scratch 1.x, methods took arguments corresponding to the block's arguments, and the context (this or self) is the sprite. In 2.0, they are passed a single argument containing all of the block's arguments and context. Snap! seems to follow the 1.x method.
Stack (command) blocks do not return anything; reporter blocks do.
Interpreting
The interpreter works somewhat like this. Each block contains a reference to the next one, and any subroutines (reporter blocks in arguments; command blocks in a C-slot).
First, all arguments are resolved. Reporters are called, and their return value stored. This is done recursively for lots of Reporter blocks inside each other.
Then, the command itself is executed. Ideally this is a simple command (e.g. move). The method is called, the Stage is updated.
Continue with the next block.
C blocks
C blocks have a slightly different procedure. These are the if <> style, and the repeat <> ones. In addition to their ordinary arguments, they reference their "miniscript" subroutine.
For a simple if/else C block, just execute the subroutine normally if applicable.
When dealing with loops though, you have to make sure to thread properly, and wait for other scripts.
Events
Keypress/click events can be dealt with easily enough. Just execute them on keypress/click.
Something like broadcasts can be done by executing the hat when the broadcast stack is run.
Other events you'll have to work out on your own.
Wait blocks
This, along with threading, is the most confusing part of the interpretation to me. Basically, you need to figure out when to continue with the script. Perhaps set a timer to execute after the time, but you still need to thread properly.
I hope this helps!
I know that a block is a reusable chunk of executable code in Objective-C. Is there a reason I shouldn't put that same chunk of code in a function and just called the function when I need that code to run?
It depends on what you're trying to accomplish. One of the cool things about blocks is that they capture local scope. You can achieve the same end result with a function, but you end up having to do something like pass around a context object full of relevant values. With a block, you can do this:
int num1 = 42;
void (^myBlock)(void) = ^{
NSLog(#"num1 is %d", num1);
};
num1 = 0; // Changed after block is created
// Sometime later, in a different scope
myBlock(); // num1 is 42
So simply by using the variable num1, its value at the time myBlock was defined is captured.
From Apple's documentation:
Blocks are a useful alternative to traditional callback functions for
two main reasons:
They allow you to write code at the point of invocation that is
executed later in the context of the method implementation. Blocks are
thus often parameters of framework methods.
They allow access to local variables. Rather than using callbacks
requiring a data structure that embodies all the contextual
information you need to perform an operation, you simply access local
variables directly.
As Brad Larson comments in response to this answer:
Blocks will let you define actions that take place in response to an
event, but rather than have you write a separate method or function,
they allow you to write the handling code right where you set up the
listener for that event. This can save a mess of code and make your
application much more organized.
A good example of which i can give you is of alert view, it will be good if i decided at time of creation of alert view what will happen when i dismiss that instead i write the delegate method and wait for that to call. So it will be much easier to understand and implement and also it provides fast processing.
Is it a function?
Is it a function being called from the source?
Or, is it a function being returned from the destination?
Or, is it just executing a function at the destination?
Or, is it a value returned from a function passed to the destination?
A callback is the building block of asynchronous processing.
Think of it this way: when you call someone and they don't answer, you leave a message and your phone number. Later on, the person calls you back based on the phone number you left.
A callback works in a similar manner.
You ask an API for a long running operation and you provide a method from within your code to be called with the result of the operation. The API does its work and when the result is ready, it calls your callback method.
From the great Wikipedia:
In computer programming, a callback is
executable code that is passed as an
argument to other code. It allows a
lower-level software layer to call a
subroutine (or function) defined in a
higher-level layer.
Said another way, when you pass a callback to your method, it's as if you are providing additional instructions (e.g., what you should do next). An attempt at making a simple human example follows:
Paint this wall this shade of green (where "paint" is analagous to the method called, while "wall" and "green" are similar to arguments).
When you have finished painting, call me at this number to let me know that you're done and I'll tell you what to do next.
In terms of practical applications, one place where you will sometimes see callbacks is in situations with asynchronous message passing. You might want to register a particular message as an item of interest for class B.
However, without something like a callback, there's no obvious way for class A to know that class B has received the message. With a callback, you can tell class B, here's the message that I want you to listen for and this is the method in class A that I want you to call when you receive it.
Here is a Java example of a callback from a related question.