I would like to pipe the output of some clingo call into another clingo call, such that the answer set of the first one is regarded as facts to the second one. It should look a bit like this: clingo foo.lp | clingo bar.lp, but the output of clingo foo.lp contains some extra lines and the format of the answer set is not syntactically valid. How can i achieve that?
Taken from README.md of https://github.com/potassco/asprilo-encodings/
clingo foo.lp -V0 --out-atomf=%s. | head -n 1 | clingo - bar.lp
Related
I have a requirement to replace multiple columns of a csv file with its base64 encoding value which should be applied to some columns of the file but keep the first line unaffected as the first line contains the header of the file. I have tried out for 1 column as below but as I have given it to proceed after skipping the first line of the file it is not
gawk 'BEGIN { FS="|"; OFS="|" } NR >=2 { cmd="echo "$4" | base64 -w 0";cmd | getline x;close(cmd); print $1,$2,$3,x}' awktest
o/p:
12|A|B|Qw==
13|C|D|RQ==
36|Z|V|VQ==
Qs: It is not showing the header in the output. What should I do to make produce the header in the output? Also can I use any loop here to replace multiple columns?
input:
10|A|B|C|5|T|R
12|A|B|C|6|eee|ff
13|C|D|E|9|dr|xrdd
36|Z|V|U|7|xc|xd
Required output:
10|A|B|C|5|T|R
12|A|B|encodedvalue|6|encodedvalue|ff
13|C|D|encodedvalue|9|encodedvalue|xrdd
36|Z|V|encodedvalue|7|encodedvalue|xd
Is this possible? Have researched a lot but could not find a proper explanation. I am new to shell. Kindly help. Many thanks!!!!
It looks like you can just sequence conditionals. This may not be the best way of solving the header issue, but it's intuitive.
BEGIN { FS="|"; OFS="|" } NR ==1 {print} NR >=2 { cmd="echo "$4" | base64 -w 0";cmd | getline x;close(cmd); print $1,$2,$3,x}
As for using a loop to affect multiple columns... Loops in bash are hard. Awk is technically its own language, and may have a looping construct of it's own, IDK. But it's not clear you need a loop. If there's only a reasonable number of fields that need modifying, you can just parameterize the existing command (somehow) by the field index, and then pipe through however many instances of it. It won't be as performant as doing it all in a single pass of awk, but that's probably ok.
I would like to have the output of src_R blocks in an org-mode table:
| Variable | Value |
|----------+----------|
| x | src_R{x} |
However, when I export to PDF (via LaTeX) I get the literal src_R{x} rather than the value of the x variable in the underlying R session. I can use the same src_R{x} in text and it works as expected.
Is there a way to support inline source code in tables?
(I have seen this question with a similar title: Code blocks inside tables for org-mode, but the topic is different.)
Thanks to the prompt by Juancho (see comments), I have found the answer here: http://orgmode.org/worg/org-contrib/babel/intro.html#spreadsheet. I first define a named source block to perform my R computation:
#+NAME: my-code
#+BEGIN_SRC R :results output
message(10)
#+END_SRC
(Imagine the output is simply the number 10). Then I insert it into the table like this:
| Variable | Value |
|----------+-------|
| Name | |
#+TBLFM: #2$2='(org-sbe my-code)
Comments:
It seems that org-babel-execute is no longer there, the docs use org-sbe, which works with my 9.0.x org-mode version.
I have wrapped the code output in message() to avoid extra output from R. I have tried various header arguments to the R code (e.g., :results value raw) but I get either extra parentheses, presumably from lisp, or errors.
With org-sbe you can also pass arguments to the code, and even the output of other code blocks. This is explained in the docs referenced above.
I'm endeavoring to create a system to generalize rules from input text. I'm using reVerb to create my initial set of rules. Using the following command[*], for instance:
$ echo "Bananas are an excellent source of potassium." | ./reverb -q | tr '\t' '\n' | cat -n
To generate output of the form:
1 stdin
2 1
3 Bananas
4 are an excellent source of
5 potassium
6 0
7 1
8 1
9 6
10 6
11 7
12 0.9999999997341693
13 Bananas are an excellent source of potassium .
14 NNS VBP DT JJ NN IN NN .
15 B-NP B-VP B-NP I-NP I-NP I-NP I-NP O
16 bananas
17 be source of
18 potassium
I'm currently piping the output to a file, which includes the preceding white space and numbers as depicted above.
What I'm really after is just the simple rule at the end, i.e. lines 16, 17 & 18. I've been trying to create a script to extract just that component and put it to a new file in the form of a Prolog clause, i.e. be source of(banans, potassium).
Is that feasible? Can Prolog rules contain white space like that?
I think I'm locked into getting all that output from reVerb so, what would be the best way to extract the desirable component? With a Perl script? Or maybe sed?
*Later I plan to replace this with a larger input file as opposed to just single sentences.
This seems wasteful. Why not leave the tabs as they are, and use:
$ echo "Bananas are an excellent source of potassium." \
| ./reverb -q | cut --fields=16,17,18
And yes, you can have rules like this in Prolog. See the answer by #mat. You need to know a bit of Prolog before you move on, I guess.
It is easier, however, to just make the string a a valid name for a predicate:
be_source_of with underscores instead of spaces
or 'be source of' with spaces, and enclosed in single quotes.
You can use probably awk to do what you want with the three fields. See for example the printf command in awk. Or, you can parse it again from Prolog directly. Both are beyond the scope of your current question, I feel.
sed -n 'N;N
:cycle
$!{N
D
b cycle
}
s/\(.*\)\n\(.*\)\n\(.*\)/\2 (\1,\3)/p' YourFile
if number are in output and not jsut for the reference, change last sed action by
s/\^ *[0-9]\{1,\} \{1,\}\(.*\)\n *[0-9]\{1,\} \{1,\}\(.*\)\n *[0-9]\{1,\} \{1,\}\(.*\)/\2 (\1,\3)/p
assuming the last 3 lines are the source of your "rules"
Regarding the Prolog part of the question:
Yes, Prolog facts can contain whitespace like this, with suitable operator declarations present.
For example:
:- op(700, fx, be).
:- op(650, fx, source).
:- op(600, fx, of).
Example query and its result, to let you see the shape of terms that are created with this syntax:
?- write_canonical(be source of(a, b)).
be(source(of(a,b))).
Therefore, with these operator declarations, a fact like:
be source of(a, b).
is exactly the same as stating:
be(source(of(a,b)).
Depending on use cases and other definitions, it may even be an advantage to create this kind of facts (i.e., facts of the form be/1 instead of source_of/2). If this is the only kind of facts you need, you can simply write:
source_of(a, b).
This creates no redundant wrappers and is easier to use.
Or, as Boris suggested, you can use single quotes as in 'be source of'/2.
Playing around with the standard linux diff command, I could not find a way to avoid the following type of grouping in its output (the output listings here assume the unified format)
This question aims at the case that each line differs by little from its counterpart in the other file, and it's more useful to see each line next to its counterpart.
I would like instead of having groups like this show up in the comparison output:
- line 1
- line 2
- line 3
+ line 1 modified
+ line 2 modified
+ line 3 modified
To get this:
- line 1
+ line 1 modified
- line 2
+ line 2 modified
- line 3
+ line 3 modified
Of course, this is a convenience question as this can be accomplished by writing your own code to post-process the diff output, or diverging from the lcs algorithm with your own algorithm. I don't think variants like wdiff etc. would help much, as the plain diff -U0 output format fits my needs very well except for this grouping property, whereas wdiff introduces other aspects that are not optimal for my case.
I'm looking for a command-line way, or a library that can be used in code, not a UI tool.
I was trying to solve this myself. The closest I go was this:
diff -y -W 10000 file1 file2 | grep '|' | sed 's/\s*|\s*/\n/g'
The one issue is that this assumes there are no "white space" difference at the beginning of the lines (or that you don't care about it).
I want to capture and plot the results from 5 or so timeit calls with logarithmically increasing sizes of N to show how methodX() scales with input.
So far I have tried:
output = %timeit -r 10 results = methodX(N)
It does not work...
Can't find info in the docs either. I feel like you should be able to at least intercept the string that is printed. After that I can parse it to extract my info.
Has anyone done this or tried?
PS: this is in an ipython notebook if that makes a diff.
This duplicate question Capture the result of an IPython magic function has an answer demonstrating that this has since been implemented.
Calling the %timeit magic with the -o option like:
%timeit -o <statement>
returns a TimeitResult object which is a simple object with all information about the %timeit run as attributes. For example:
In [1]: result = %timeit -o 1 + 2
Out[1]: 10000000 loops, best of 3: 23.2 ns per loop
In [2]: result.best
Out[2]: 2.3192405700683594e-08
PS: this is in an ipython notebook if that makes a diff.
No it does not.
On dev there is te %%capture cell magic.
The other way would be to modify the timeit magic to return value instead of printing, or use the timeit module itself. Patches welcomed.