I'm kind of rusty on Delphi. Used in the early nineties but am C# programmer now. I'm current working on a Delphi project.
I have to transform a lot of .pas file for localization of strings. I've written a C# program to do the transformation. The idea is to parse all .pas files an everywhere there a Dutch text string replace it with call to our language routines. I now find the problem that there a lot of constants in many of the units that have to transform to variables. The current implementation does it like this but this doesn't compile:
before:
unit _TypesConstantsCommon;
interface
uses System.SysUtils;
const
cDEELPRJN_OMSCHRIJVING_OPSTELLEN_OFFERTE = 'Opstellen offerte';
after:
unit _TypesConstantsCommon;
interface
uses System.SysUtils;
var
cDEELPRJN_OMSCHRIJVING_OPSTELLEN_OFFERTE:string = TLanguagesManager.GetSingleton.GetText(c_TypesConstantsCommon1);
Is this at all possible? If not what should I generate to get this done?
Related
I am trying to learn how to implement some of the helper providers: autocomplete, signature help and hover.
I am doing it for a framework that, as far as I know, it cannot be executed outside its main application, so one way I thought to go about this (get the objects types, methods and docs) is by parsing its documentation.
For example the Hover provider; once the cursor is hovering the word, I can search for it in the documentation and display the result:
class HSHoverProvider implements vscode.HoverProvider {
public provideSignatureHelp(
document: vscode.TextDocument,
position: vscode.Position,
token: vscode.CancellationToken
): vscode.SignatureHelp {
// get current word/line under the cursor and find a match inside the docs
...
return new vscode.Hover(data);
}
}
...
context.subscriptions.push(
vscode.languages.registerHoverProvider("lua", new HSHoverProvider())
);
This works fine when the action is directly on the initial declaration. I can parse directly the line and find what I need with a regex.
-- hovering over `application`, I check the context with a regex.
local app = hs.application('Code')
However, I am having a hard time when it comes to a "reference". Searching the document for the declaration of app with a regex approach leads to many edge cases, mainly because of the declaration scope:
Example:
-- declaration target
local app = hs.application('Code')
local function foo()
local app = hs.pasteboard()
end
local function bar()
if 'foo' then
local app = hs.alert()
end
do local app = hs.window.focusedWindow() end
-- a regex will have a hard time to understand which declaration is correct
print(app:title())
end
This lead me thinking that a regex is not the appropriate solution. I also thought that implementing vscode.DefinitionProvider will give me some insight but it did not.
I've tried to look at other extensions that do already the same thing (mainly Lua Language Server by sumneko), but I am not able to understand how they went for it (besides they are using the language server approach).
How would I go for something like this? Do I need an AST tree and inspect from there? Would using the language server be a better choice? Am I missing a bigger picture or I just need a more robust document parser?
Any insight is appreciated. Thanks in advance
The usual approach in such cases is to create a symbol table. You start by parsing the code for which you want to provide the tooling. From the parse tree (or syntax tree, depending on the parser tool used) you generate your symbol table, which holds the informations you need, including the nesting of blocks and symbols, the type of symbols (e.g. object name or object reference) and the scope for which a symbol is valid.
I would like to import an existing C code (or any other text) into my generated code by Matlab simulink.I have some tasks that made in C,but in the future i want to develop in matlab.I work in simulink,and I can compile the models,but I want to use some special function what I previously wrote in C (because of pointer etc.).
The problem is that I don't know how to put in these texts into the model,and after the code generation these texts stay in the original format,and placed in the expected line.
And what I would like:
You can achieve this using the S-Function Builder. It allows one to create C code blocks, which get compiled with the model run. If using Code Generator, it gets inserted into generated code.
I generally use it to call functions from my external code or libraries, as in some Raspberry Pi Driver blocks I created.
It generates .c, .h and .mex files for each block and is quite clunky but does work!
BTW: If it's just to use an external pointer, you can happily use ImportedPointer/ExportedPointer for this. I find this handy for variables between generated code and container.
I'm developing a Simulink modell with many C-s-functions. For an easier handling I want to use constants in the c-s-function as in the simulink-modell. So I have a c-header with preprocesser constants like:
#define THIS_IS_A_CONSANT 10
And there is the question:
How it is possible to include this in Simulink in this way I can use THIS_IS_A_CONSANT for example in a constant source like a workspace-variable?
Thanks and regards
Alex
There is functionality in Simulink that will allow you to include custom C header files that define constants, variables, etc.; however, as far as I know (and as one might expect) this really is only pertinent in cases where code is being generated and compiled.
So, for the most part, this particular functionality is only relevant when you are using Simulink Coder to generate a stand-alone executable from your model. For example, this link shows how to include parameters stored in an external header file during code generation through the use of Simulink.Parameter objects with Custom Storage Classes and the Code Generation - Custom Code Pane under the model's Configuration Parameters.
This link from the Simulink doc shows how to use the #define custom storage class to achieve similar results.
However, it sounds like neither of these really solve your issue, as you want to make use of the code in the header file during simulation.
That said, considering that there are elements in Simulink, such as Stateflow Charts and MATLAB Function blocks, that generate and build code "under the hood" during simulation, it's (at least hypothetically) possible that you might be able to use some of the concepts described above to access the values in your header file from one of those elements during simulation. For example, I was successfully able to access preprocessor macros in a Stateflow chart just by going to the Simulation Target->Custom Code pane under Configuration Parameters and including the text #include "header.h" under Include custom C code in generated: Header file. (In this case, header.h contained the line of C code that you included in your post)
Although it seems like you should be able to extend this functionality further, this really was the limit of what I was able to achieve as far as accessing the header file during simulation was concerned. For example, I know that running a model in Rapid Accelerator mode actually generates and builds code under the hood, so seemingly you should be able to use some combination of the techniques I described above to be able to access values from the header file during simulation. It looks like the code that Rapid Accelerator mode generates doesn't respect all of the settings defined by those techniques in the same way that Simulink/Embedded Coder do, though, so I just kept running into compilation errors. (Although maybe I'm just missing some creative combination of settings that could make that work).
Hopefully that helps explain Simulink's abilities (and limitations) regarding the inclusion of C header files. So to summarize, according to the links included above, what you are asking for is almost barely possible, but in practice... not really.
So if really all you want is to be able to create workspace variables out of the preprocessor #define's in your header file, it probably is just easiest to manually parse the file with a MATLAB script, as had previously been suggested in the comments. Here is a quick-and-dirty script that loads in a header file, iterates over each line, uses a regular expression (which you can improve upon if needed) to parse #define statements, and then calls eval to create variables from the parsed input.
filename = 'header.h';
pattern = '^\s*#define\s*(\w*)\s*(\d*\.?\d+)';
fid = fopen(filename);
tline = fgetl(fid);
while ischar(tline)
tokens = regexp(tline, pattern,'tokens','once');
if(numel(tokens) == 2)
eval([tokens{1} ' = ' tokens{2}]);
end
tline = fgetl(fid);
end
fclose(fid);
You could put this code in a callback so that it will execute every time you load your model. Just goto File->Model Properties->Model Properties, click on the Callbacks tab, and then place the code under whichever callback you desire (such as PreLoadFcn if you want it to run immediately before the model loads).
This is almost a programming question, but geared towards physicists.
Suppose I am writing a piece of software that takes some system parameters as input and then calculates something from it, in my case a spectral function $A(k,\omega)$.
When I want to just take the output and feed it to gnuplot, I should make the program output a simple table with one column for the $k$-values, one for $\omega$ and one for $A(k,\omega)$.
But then I cannot store there all the additional information, such as what parameters were used. And maybe I want to store in that output some additional debugging information such as intermediate quantities. In my example, the spectral function is obtained from the self energy, so in some situations I might want to look at the self energy directly.
I do not want to constantly hack the source code depending on what output I want. It would be nicer if all the relevant data of a "run" would be present in a single file/entity but so that it is still easy to extract tables I can feed to gnuplot.
Not wanting to reinvent the wheel and develop a full-blown file format, are there some "standards" around that are best used when creating, processing and storing data from calculations or simulations? Maybe even in an SQL database format?
There are dozens of methods, and none too good; I'll share two mine:
If the program is worth it, I add a small parser of config files. Then I just make a cofig, let's say, SimA.in, and simulator makes a bunch of files with corresponding data SimA.paths, SimA.stats, SimA.log, etc. Unless the names are unique and I add version of the code to log, this makes the results fully reproducible and the simulation itself portable enough to be easily manageable.
If not, I just wrap a code a bit and use R as a host. Then I just return all the arrays and scalars (R data structures are very flexible, and it is easy to cast native R or C structs) and use R to manage, save/load and of course visualize and analyse the data. Moreover, with Sweave and CacheSweave the whole executing, analysis and reporting can be bunched in an elegant bunch, fully reproducible with one command.
If you want an "enterprise" solution, try NetCDF or HDF5. But I feel it may be an overkill here.
And of course a version control of the simulator code is a must. But that's obvious =)
For a project I'm currently working on that uses Python and C++ (via SWIG), I'm planning to use a short python script as input file. So, in a way, I'll be 'hacking the source' to change parameters, but in an interpreted language, not a compiled one.
Currently, I plan to have an input file like parameters.py, and use it like from parameters import params. But that might be too dependent on correct syntax.
params = {
"foods" : ["spam", "beans", "eggs"],
"costs" : [199, 4, 1],
"customerAge" : 23,
}
Another option might be to just define the variables at the script level in parameters2.py. This loses the nice dictionary packaging, but makes it a little harder for the user to mess it up. And it probably wouldn't be to hard to write a 'parser' that puts those script-level variables into a nice dictionary. A plus to method is that the user could parameterize things that weren't originally considered--from parameters2 import * would overwrite previous definitions of those parameters. Of course, this might be bad if the user overwrites something important.
foods = ["spam", "beans", "eggs"]
costs = [199, 4, 1]
customerAge = 23
parameters3.py would use a class, though it is contraindicated by Python's persnicketiness about indentation. from parameters3 import params:
class params:
foods = ["spam", "beans", "eggs"]
costs = [199, 4, 1]
customerAge = 23
I should also mention, for completeness, that our C++ code also defines a parameters class. That is, in our actual project, parameters.py is a SWIG wrapper for a corresponding C++ class. You'd use like from parameters4 import params. However, this allows only parameters that are already declared in the C++ class.
import parameters
params = parameters.Parameters()
params.foods = ["spam", "beans", "eggs"]
params.costs = [199, 4, 1]
params.customerAge = 23
I have been using CodeDom to do some code generation. It works great, but I haven't found a way to include the generated source code files in a project. I started using T4 and the T4Toolbox to generate code because it supports integration with project files.
Does anyone know if CodeDom supports this functionality too? I'd consider taking a second look at CodeDom if it only supported this one feature.
Here is an example of how I make a source code file with CodeDom:
protected void CreateSourceFile(CodeCompileUnit codeCompileUnit,
string fileName,
out string fileNameWithExtension)
{
fileNameWithExtension = string.Format("{0}.{1}",
fileName,
CodeProvider.FileExtension);
var indentedTextWriter =
new IndentedTextWriter(new StreamWriter(fileNameWithExtension,
false),
TabString);
CodeProvider.GenerateCodeFromCompileUnit(codeCompileUnit,
indentedTextWriter,
new CodeGeneratorOptions());
indentedTextWriter.Close();
}
That works fine but it just outputs the file to the hard drive somewhere (probably bin folder).
Here is a second example of some code I use with T4, this one specifies the output as part of the project the template is transformed in:
public class RDFSClassGenerator : Generator
{
private readonly string rootNamespace;
private readonly string ontologyLocation;
public RDFSClassGenerator(
string rootNamespace,
string ontologyLocation)
{
this.rootNamespace = rootNamespace;
this.ontologyLocation = ontologyLocation;
}
protected override void RunCore()
{
XElement ontology = XElement.Load(ontologyLocation);
var service = new RDFSGeneratorService(ontology);
foreach (MetaClass metaClass in service.MetaClasses)
{
var rdfsClassTemplate = new RDFSClassTemplate(rootNamespace, metaClass);
rdfsClassTemplate.Output.File = "Domain/" + metaClass.Name + ".cs";
rdfsClassTemplate.Render();
}
}
}
So the T4 code will output the file into the "Domain" folder of my project. But the CodeGen stuff just outputs the file on disk and doesn't update the project file.
Here is a visual:
Yes, it can. Here is how: http://www.olegsych.com/2009/09/t4-and-codedom-better-together/
Short answer is no, but I could be wrong (ever try to prove a negative?)
Your question was a little confusing as CodeDom isn't exactly equitable with T4. T4 templates are a convenient way of generating code files the same way, for example, asp.net generates HTML files, mixing text and code that gets executed to generate a file that is then interpreted by something else (such as a compiler or a browser). CodeDom is usually used to generate assemblies at runtime rather than files, although you can do it (as you have discovered).
While T4 makes it easy to add files to the solution, you can do this with CodeDom as well. I don't believe it supports interaction with the solution directly, but you can manage this using EnvDTE, or the automation model for Visual Studio.
The problem with this is that the automation model isn't easy to work with. EnvDTE is a wrapper around COM classes, which is always fun to code against. Also, you have to be careful when attempting to get the object. The naive implementation will get the object from the first instance of Visual Studio loaded. You have to poll the Running Object Table to find the current instance. Once you have it, you must deal with searching through the dte for the location you're looking for, deal with source control, locked files, etc etc.
Working with it, you start to learn why T4 was created in the first place.
The question you have to ask yourself is, "Does CodeDom give me enough that T4 doesn't to make up for all its shortcomings?"