function check(str,arg;type=DataType,max=nothing,min=nothing,description="")
#argcheck typeof(arg)==type
#argcheck arg>min
#argcheck arg<max
#argcheck typeof(description)==String
return arg
end
function constr(name,arg,field)
return :(function $name($arg,$field)
new(check($name,$arg,$field))
end)
end
macro creatStruct(name,arg)
code = Base.remove_linenums!(quote
struct $name
end
end)
print(arg)
append!(code.args[1].args[3].args,[constr(name,arg.args[1].args[1],arg.args[1].args[2])])
code
end
macro myStruct(name,arg)
#creatStruct name arg
end
#myStruct test12 (
(arg1,(max=10))
)
In my code above I'm trying to build a macro that Creates a struct, and within the struct, you can define an argument with boundaries (max, min) and description, etc.
I'm getting this error:
syntax: "#141#max = 10" is not a valid function argument name
and every time I'm trying to solve it, I get another error like:
LoadError: syntax: "struct" expression not at top level
So, I think my Code/Approach is not that cohesive. Anybody can suggest tips and/or another Approche.
You're attempting to make an argument name max with a default value of 10. The error is about max=10 not being a valid name (Symbol), while max is. The bigger issue is you're trying to put this in the struct expression instead of a constructor method:
struct Foo
bar::Float64
max::Int64
end
# constructor
Foo(bar, max=10) = Foo(bar, max)
So you have to figure out how to make an expression for a method with default values, too.
Your second error means that structs must be defined in the top-level. "Top-level" is like global scope but stricter in some contexts; I don't know the exact difference, but it definitely excludes local scopes (macro, function, etc). It looks like the issue is the expression returned by creatStruct being evaluated as code in myStruct, but the LoadError I'm getting has a different message. In any case, the error goes away if I make sure things stay as expressions:
macro myStruct(name,arg)
:(#creatStruct $name $arg)
end
Related
Is it possible to define and use a function like this?
generate_mode_matrix_and_mode_frequency_and_Hw(generate_Hw: true);
function generate_mode_matrix_and_mode_frequency_and_Hw(generate_Hw)
if generate_Hw ## NOTICE: this argument is optional
.....
end
end
What I want is to specify the name of the argument when passing it. In ruby it's called hash.
The point of doing this is that, when using it, the coder know what the true mean without comment. This is
Compare this 2:
generate_mode_matrix_and_mode_frequency_and_Hw(generate_Hw: true)
generate_mode_matrix_and_mode_frequency_and_Hw(true)
Clearly, the first one is more clear.
Notice: generate_Hw is an optional argument. So without specifying it, the function would also work.
You can use something similar to Property\Value pairs:
function Foo(varargin)
for n=1:2:nargin
switch varargin{n}
case 'var1'
var1 = varargin{n+1};
case 'var2'
var2 = varargin{n+1};
end
end
In this example if you use Foo('var1',value) then var1 would get the desired value. If you don't specify the pair 'var1',value in the input, then var1 will not exist in Foo.
I'm trying to write a DAC macro that gets as input the name of list of bits and its size, and the name of integer variable. Every element in the list should be constrained to be equal to every bit in the variable (both of the same length), i.e. (for list name list_of_bits and variable name foo and their length is 4) the macro's output should be:
keep list_of_bits[0] == foo[0:0];
keep list_of_bits[1] == foo[1:1];
keep list_of_bits[2] == foo[2:2];
keep list_of_bits[3] == foo[3:3];
My macro's code is:
define <keep_all_bits'exp> "keep_all_bits <list_size'exp> <num'name> <list_name'name>" as computed {
for i from 0 to (<list_size'exp> - 1) do {
result = appendf("%s keep %s[%d] == %s[%d:%d];",result, <list_name'name>, index, <num'name>, index, index);
};
};
The error I get:
*** Error: The type of '<list_size'exp>' is 'string', while expecting a
numeric type
...
for i from 0 to (<list_size'exp> - 1) do {
Why it interprets the <list_size'exp> as string?
Thank you for your help
All macro arguments in DAC macros are considered strings (except repetitions, which are considered lists of strings).
The point is that a macro treats its input purely syntactically, and it has no semantic information about the arguments. For example, in case of an expression (<exp>) the macro is unable to actually evaluate the expression and compute its value at compilation time, or even to figure out its type. This information is figured out at later compilation phases.
In your case, I would assume that the size is always a constant. So, first of all, you can use <num> instead of <exp> for that macro argument, and use as_a() to convert it to the actual number. The difference between <exp> and <num> is that <num> allows only constant numbers and not any expressions; but it's still treated as a string inside the macro.
Another important point: your macro itself should be a <struct_member> macro rather than an <exp> macro, because this construct itself is a struct member (namely, a constraint) and not an expression.
And one more thing: to ensure that the list size will be exactly as needed, add another constraint for the list size.
So, the improved macro can look like this:
define <keep_all_bits'struct_member> "keep_all_bits <list_size'num> <num'name> <list_name'name>" as computed {
result = appendf("keep %s.size() == %s;", <list_name'name>, <list_size'num>);
for i from 0 to (<list_size'num>.as_a(int) - 1) do {
result = appendf("%s keep %s[%d] == %s[%d:%d];",result, <list_name'name>, i, <num'name>, i, i);
};
};
Why not write is without macro?
keep for each in list_of_bits {
it == foo[index:index];
};
This should do the same, but look more readable and easier to debug; also the generation engine might take some advantage of more concise constraint.
In my program when two functions with the same name are defined for the same table, I want my program to give an error. What's happening is that it's simply just calling the last function and executing it.
Here's a sample code
Class{'Cat'}
function Cat:meow( )
print("Meow!")
end
function Cat:meow()
print("Mmm")
end
kitty = Cat:create()
kitty:meow()
The result of the execution is only: "Mmm"
Instead I want something like an error message to be given.
Unfortunately, __newindex does not intercept assignments to fields which already exist. So the only way to do this is to keep Cat empty and store all its contents in a proxy table.
I don't know the nature of your OOP library, so you'll have to incorporate this example on your own:
local Cat_mt = {}
-- Hide the proxy table in closures.
do
local proxy = {}
function Cat_mt:__index(key)
return proxy[key]
end
function Cat_mt:__newindex(key, value)
if proxy[key] ~= nil then
error("Don't change that!")
end
proxy[key] = value
end
end
Cat = setmetatable({}, Cat_mt)
I have a variable called 'int' with alot of data in it. I would like to find a way to programically rename this variable with a user input. So I can query the user indentifcation information about the data, say the response is 'AA1', I want either rename the variable 'int' to 'AA1' or make 'AA1' a variable that is identical to int.
A problem using the input command arises because it allows the user to assign a value to an already created varialbe, instead of actually creating a variable name. Would using the eval function, or a variation of it, help me achieve this? Or is there an easier way?
Thanks!
Just for the record, int is a rather poor variable name choice.
That aside, you can do what you want as follows
say foo is the variable that holds a string that the user input. You can do the following:
% eliminate leading/trailing whitespace
foo = strtrim(foo);
a = regexp('[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9_]*',foo));
if numel(a) == 0
fprintf('Sorry, %s is not a valid variable name in matlab\n', foo);
elseif a ~= 1
fprintf('Sorry, %s is not a valid variable name in matlab\n', foo);
elseif 2 == exist(foo,'var')
fprintf('Sorry, %s already in use as a variable name.');
else
eval([foo,' = int']);
end
Assuming int (and now foo) is a structure with field named bar, you can read bar as follows:
barVal = eval([foo,'.bar']);
This is all somewhat clunky.
An alternative approach, that is far less clunky is to use an associative array, and let the user store various values of int in the array. The Matlab approach for associative arrays is Maps. That would be my preferred approach to this problem. Here is an example using the same variables as above.
nameValueMap = containers.Map;
nameValueMap(foo) = int;
The above creates the association between the name stored in foo with the data in the variable int.
To get at the data, you just do the following:
intValue = nameValueMap(foo);
In most OO languages, where variables may point to objects, they may also have a null value, which is highly convenient.
In Matlab, I have a function which parses a command, and then returns a cell array, or false (which is equal to zero — which is another common pattern) if it fails:
function re = parse(s)
...
if (invalid)
re = false;
return;
end
end
The problem is that when I check the result, it gives an error:
re = parse(s);
if (false == re)
Undefined function 'eq' for input arguments of type 'cell'.
I've written a function to check it without an error: strcmp('logical', class(re)) && false == re, but that seems to be really slow for use in hot areas of the code, and also inconvenient if I have to add this function to every M file I'm writing.
Using NaN is even worse, because besides throwing that error, it also isn't equal to itself.
What's a better alternative for use with this pattern?
You can use the isequal function to compare any two items without causing that error. For example:
if isequal (re, false)
%code here
end
A good alternative is to use the empty array: [] and isempty(re) to check. This doesn't throw the error.
Reference: http://www.mathworks.com.au/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_thread/148764
If you can change the function parse one solution would be to return two output arguments [re status] = parse(s), where status would be logical variable. Set it to true in case of success, and to false otherwise.
I would use the empty cell array {} if it is not a valid result otherwise. Using empty matrices is MATLAB standard (see Evgeni Sergeev's answer), but using an empty cell array instead of an empty numeric array ensures that you'll always end up with the same type of result.
If, on the other hand, the empty cell array {} is a valid result of your function, then I'd use an exception to signalize a problem:
if invalid
error('Parse:InvalidArgumentError', 'The input is invalid.');
end
Make sure to use an appropriate error ID (first argument to error) so that you can catch exactly that exception when you call the function:
try:
result = parse(something);
catch ME
if strcmp(ME.identifier, 'Parse:InvalidArgumentError')
fprintf('Ooops\n');
else
% Some other error
ME.rethrow();
end
end
I think the problem is that matlab functions don't return pointers but copies of values.
IMHO the best best approach would be to define your own "pointer" class. Inside you can define an "isNull()" command or even override comparison to produce the behavior you desire.