I'm using Visual Studio Code and have been typing code like this repeated times:
fmt.Println("Result of test 1:", test1Val/total)
fmt.Println("Result of test 2:", test2Val/total)
fmt.Println("Result of test 3:", test3Val/total)
fmt.Println("Result of test 4:", test4Val/total)
...
Seeing as the Numbers are in ascending order, is there a way to repeat a line of code while incrementing the numbers within? (a bit like dragging down a cell in Excel)
EDIT: I'm looking for the VScode function for repeated lines with different values, the code is just an example.
Codegeneration is not the answer to your problem.
A stucture similar to this is:
testResults := []int{1, 42, 666}
total := 777
for t, result := range testResults {
fmt.Printf("Result of test %v: %v\n", t, float64(result)/float64(total))
}
Regardless of code generation or arrays, if you still want to write your code or text like that and look for some way of insert incrementing or decrementing sequence of numbers, you can use the vs-code-input-sequence extension and multiple cursors to manipulate and configure the way the sequence is inserted.
Although it's not the best for code efficiency, it's still a very good tool for documentation and other text editing situations. It used the input panel (keyboard shortcut) to insert syntax like, the start, operator, step, digit and radix.
https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=tomoki1207.vscode-input-sequence
Extension credit is to tomoki1207
Related
I've tried searching this but have yet to find something that suits anything close to my needs. I'm trying to create a Autocad LISP that takes a text file, which is a list of comma-separated values, and place a block at coordinates defined by the list. BUT, only for items on the list where the last entry starts with "HP"
So that's sounds a bit complex, but the text file is basically a UTM survey output, and looks like this:
1000,Easting,Northing,Elevation,Identifier
1001,Easting,Northing,Elevation,Identifier
Etc.
The identifier is a variety of values, but I want to extract the Northing,Easting,Elevation, and insert a block (this last part I've got) at that location when the identifier begins with "HP". The list can be long and the number of HPs can be 1 or 5000. I'm assuming there's a "for x=1:end, do" type of loop than can be made that reuses the same variables over and over.
I'm a newbie to LISP so I'm stuck in that spot between "here are I've-never-programmed-before tutorials to make hello world" and "here is a library of the 3000 different commands in alphabetical order"
I believe the functions you are needing to solve this question are open, read-line or read-char, close,strlen, and substr. The first four functions relate to AutoLisp writing and reading a file. The last two functions manipulate the string variables that were pulled from the file. With them, you can find the "HP" within the text. To loop through the same code, three come to my mind: repeat, while, and foreach.
For a list of variables to quickly reference with their descriptions, here's a good starting point. This particular page has the information broken up by category instead of alphabetical order.
https://help.solidworks.com/2022/English/api/draftsightlispreference/html/lisp_functions_overview.htm
Here are a few tutorials where AutoLisp code is used to write and read other files:
https://www.afralisp.net/autolisp/tutorials/file-handling.php
https://www.afralisp.net/autolisp/tutorials/external-data.php
Lastly, here's an example of AutoLisp writing and reading attributes from and to blocks.
https://github.com/GitHubUser5376/AttributeImportExport
You can use Lee-Mac's Reacd-CSV function to get a list of the csv values.
And for the "HP" detection yes you might have to go through(using loop options mentioned above like while, repeat,foreach) each and use
(substr Identifier 1 2)
to validate
I am trying to create a macro that examines each line in a file and then performs different actions depending on some condition, for example:
if condition A is true then ... else if condition B is true then ...
and then repeats for the next line, until reaching the end of the file (EOF).
I haven't found any references for that in the manual or the Macro Reference, so I am working around it by creating a separate macro for each single condition, including a search string. I then run the macros sequentially using the Run with Temporary Options... menu and setting the Repeat Count to some arbitrary high number greater than the number of lines in the file, as well as setting the Stop if Search Fails option.
Not very elegant and a bit error-prone but it gets the job done. I suppose a plugin would be a better way to do this but that involves some additional programming complexity, which I am trying to avoid. Using 64-bit Pro v21.5.2.
I am trying to use the formula below to set conditions in LibreOffice but I keep getting an error. What am I doing wrong with the statement below:
=IF(G2<=2,'negative',IF(OR(G2>2 & G2<=3,'neutral',IF(OR(G2>=4,'positive))))))
Thanks
It seems, that in your formula is missing the last ':
'positive))))))
should be 'positive'))))))
Also the
&
is string-concatenation in LibreOffice, so you need here the equivalent to OR() and that is AND().
But you can simplify your formula to
=IF(G2<=2,'negative',IF(AND(G2>2,G2<=3),'neutral','positive'))
The first test is if the number is lower than 2 (negative),
the second test is if the number is between 2 and 3 (neutral)
and then there is no further test needed as it is the only remainig possiblity.
For a different locale, a slightly shorter, and I'd say simpler, version that also avoids the need for OR/AND:
=IF(G2<=2,"negative",IF(G2<=3,"neutral","positive"))
Once <=2 first test is handled (either but outputting negative or by proceeding to the 'result if FALSE') there is no longer the possibility of 2 or less, so the AND is not necessary.
The above though does fill a gap left by OP between 3 and 4.
I am doing binary classification using vowpal-wabbit. A particular record(set of features) has 10 zeroes and 5 ones. So, I am creating two lines in vowpal-format
-1 10 `50 |f f1
1 5 `50 |f f1
Since the prediction(probability) for both these records would be same, I want to keep the same tag, so that I can dedupe the predictions({tag,prediction}) later and join with my original raw-data.
Is it possible to keep the same tag for more than one record in vowpal-wabbit?
First, the syntax above isn't correct
To be identified as such, tags should either:
Touch the | separator (no space between them) OR
The leading quote, needs to be a simple quote, not a backquote, by convention.
(or both).
Otherwise you get:
warning: `50 is not a good float, replacing with 0
warning: `50 is not a good float, replacing with 0
Which hints that vw interprets these "tags" as prediction-base.
For details, see Input format in the official documentation
Once the example is fixed to the correct syntax:
-1 10 '50|f f1
1 5 '50|f f1
Which runs fine, we can answer the question:
Is it possible to keep the same tag for more than one record in vowpal-wabbit?
Yes, you can. The tag is merely a simple way to connect input and output (when predictions are involved), there's no check for uniqueness anywhere. If you duplicate tags on input, you'll simply get the same duplicate tags on prediction output as well.
More notes:
Even if two examples are identical, you may get different predictions, if the model has changed somewhat in between them. Remember vw is an online learner, so the model can continuously change with each example unless you add the -t (test-only, don't learn) option.
Features whose value is zero are ignored, so you can drop them. The standard way in vw to say this is 'positive' and this is 'negative' is to use the values {+1, -1}. This is true for both labels and input features.
My goal is coming up with a script to track the point a line was added, even if the line is subsequently modified or moved around (both of which confuse traditional vcs 'blame' scripts. I've done some minor background research (see bottom) but didn't find anything useful. I have a concept for how to proceed but the runtime would be atrocious (there's a factorial involved).
The two missing features are tracking edited-in-place lines separate from a deletion-and-addition of that line, and tracking entire functions moved around so they're in different hunks. For those experienced with diff but unfamiliar with the terminology, a subsequence is a contiguous group of + or - lines, with a type of either delete (all -), add (all +), or replace (a combination). I need more information, on moves and edit-in-place lines, vaguely alluded to in an entry on c2: DiffAlgorithm (paragraph starts with "My favorite mode"). Does anyone know what that is? (seems to be based on Tichy, see bottom.)
Here's more info on the two missing features:
no concept of a change on a line, (a fourth type, something like edit-in-place). In this hunk, the parent of 'bc' is 'b' but 'd' is new and isn't a descendant of 'b':
a
-b
+bc
+d
The workaround for this isn't too complicated, if the position of edits is the same (just an expanded version of markup_instraline_changes but comparing edit distance on all equal-sized subsets of old and new lines.
no concept of "moving" code that preserves the ownership of the lines, e.g. this diff shouldn't alter the ownership of "line", although its position changes.
a
-line
c
+line
This could be dealt with in the same way but with much worse runtime (instead of only checking single blocks marked 'replace', you'd need to check Levenshtein distance between all added against all removed lines) and with likely false positives (some, like whitespace-only lines, aren't relevant to my problem).
Research I've done: reading about gestalt pattern matching (Ratcliff and Obershelp, used in Python's difflib) and An O(ND) Difference Algorithm and its Variations (EW Myers).
After posting the question, I found references to Tichy84 which appears to be The string-to-string correction problem with block moves (which I haven't read yet) according to Walter Tichy's paper a year later on RCS
You appear to be interested in origin tracking, the problem of tracing where a line came from.
Ideally, you'd instrument the editor to remember how things were edited, and store the edits with the text in your repository, thus solving the problem trivially, but none of us software engineers seem to be smart enough to implement this simple idea.
As a weak substitute, one can look at a sequence of source code revisions from the repository and reconstruct a "plausible" history of changes. This is what you seem to be doing by proposing the use of "diff". As you've noted, diff doesn't understand the idea of "moving" or "copying".
SD Smart Differencer tools compare source text by parsing the text according to the langauge it is in, discovering the code structures, and computing least-Levensthein differences in terms of programming language constructs (identifiers, expressions, statements, blocks, classes, ...) and abstract editing operators "insert", "delete", "copy", "move" and "rename identifier within a scope". They produce diff-like output, a little richer because they tell you line/column -> line/column with different editing operations.
Obviously the "move" and "copy" edits are the ones most interesting to you in terms of tracking specific lines (well, specific language constructs). Our experience is that code goes through lots of copy and edits, too, which I suspect won't surprise you.
These tools are in Beta, and are presently available for COBOL, Java and C#. Lots of other langauges are in the pipe, because the SmartDifferencer is built on top of a langauge-parameterized infrastructure, DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit, which has quite a number of already existing, robust langauge grammars.
I think the idea of what amount of editing a line that can be done while it remains a descendent of some previously written line is very subjective, and based on context, both things that a computer cannot work with. You'd have to specify some sort of configurable minimum similarity on lines in your program I think... The other problem is that it is entirely possible for two identical lines to be written completely independently (for example incrementing the value of some variable), and this will be be quite a common thing, so your desired algorithm won't really give truthful or useful information about a line quite often.
I would like to suggest an algorithm for this though (which makes tons of hopefully obvious assumptions by the way) so here goes:
Convert both texts to lists of lines
Copy the lists and Strip all whitespace from inside of each line
Delete blank lines from both lists
Repeat
Do a Levenshtein distance from the old to new lists ...
... keeping all intermediate data
Find all lines in the new text that were matched with old lines
Mark the line in both new/old original lists as having been matched
Delete the line from the new text (the copy)
Optional: If some matched lines are in a contiguous sequence ...
... in either original text assign them to a grouping as well!
Until there is nothing left but unmatchable lines in the new text
Group together sequences of unmatched lines in both old and new texts ...
... which are contiguous in the original text
Attribute each with the line match before and after
Run through all groups in old text
If any match before and after attributes with new text groups for each
//If they are inside the same area basically
Concatenate all the lines in both groups (separately and in order)
Include a character to represent where the line breaks are
Repeat
Do a Levenshtein distance on these concatenations
If there are any significantly similar subsequences found
//I can't really define this but basically a high proportion
//of matches throughout all lines involved on both sides
For each matched subsequence
Find suitable newline spots to delimit the subsequence
Mark these lines matched in the original text
//Warning splitting+merging of lines possible
//No 1-to-1 correspondence of lines here!
Delete the subsequence from the new text group concat
Delete also from the new text working list of lines
Until there are no significantly similar subsequences found
Optional: Regroup based on remaining unmatched lines and repeat last step
//Not sure if there's any point in trying that at the moment
Concatenate the ENTIRE list of whitespaced-removed lines in the old text
Concatenate the lines in new text also (should only be unmatched ones left)
//Newline character added in both cases
Repeat
Do Levenshtein distance on these concatenations
Match similar subsequences in the same way as earlier on
//Don't need to worry deleting from list of new lines any more though
//Similarity criteria should be a fair bit stricter here to avoid
// spurious matchings. Already matched lines in old text might have
// even higher strictness, since all of copy/edit/move would be rare
While you still have matchings
//Anything left unmatched in the old text is deleted stuff
//Anything left unmatched in the new text is newly written by the author
Print out some output to show all the comparing results!
Well, hopefully you can see the basics of what I mean with that completely untested algorithm. Find obvious matches first, and verbatim moves of chunks of decreasing size, then compare stuff that's likely to be similar, then look for anything else which is similar, but both modified and moved: probably just coincidentally similar.
Well, if you try implementing this, tell me how it works out, and what details you changed, and what kind of assignments you made to the various variables involved... I expect there will be some test cases where it works brilliantly and others where it just abyssmally fails due to some massive oversight. The idea is that most stuff will be matched before you get to the inefficient final loop, and indeed the previous one