I wanted a list of numbers:
auto nums = iota(0, 5000);
Now nums is of type Result. It cannot be cast to int[], and it cannot be used as a drop-in replacement for int[].
It's not very clear from the docs how to actually use an iota as a range. Am I using the wrong function? What's the way to make a "range" in D?
iota, like many functions in Phobos, is lazy. Result is a promise to give you what you need when you need it but no value is actually computed yet. You can pass it to a foreach statement for example like so:
import std.range: iota;
foreach (i ; iota(0, 5000)) {
writeln(i);
}
You don't need it for a simple foreach though:
foreach (i ; 0..5000) {
writeln(i);
}
That aside, it is hopefully clear that iota is useful by itself. Being lazy also allows for costless chaining of transformations:
/* values are computed only once in writeln */
iota(5).map!(x => x*3).writeln;
// [0, 3, 6, 9, 12]
If you need a "real" list of values use array from std.array to delazify it:
int[] myArray = iota(0, 5000).array;
As a side note, be warned that the word range has a specific meaning in D that isn't "range of numbers" but describes a model of iterators much like generators in python. iota is a range (so an iterator) that produced a range (common meaning) of numbers.
Related
One very common parsing scenario in programming languages is an arbitrary-length nonempty list of elements with a separator, for example:
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
f(a, b, c)
I've been parsing this in treesitter as follows:
list: $ => seq(
repeat(seq($.element, ',')),
$.element
)
This works, but it's common enough that I wonder whether treesitter has a built-in construct for it. Does it?
In several grammars, (e.g. Rust, Go), we define helper functions for this.
function commaSep1(rule) {
return seq(rule, repeat(seq(',', rule)))
}
function commaSep(rule) {
return optional(commaSep1(rule))
}
We could include these functions as part of the Tree-sitter DSL, but since it's so easy to
define your own helper functions like this, I think it's best to keep the DSL small.
I'm trying to create an unpacked array like this:
logic [3:0] AAA[0:9];
I'd like to initialize this array to the following values:
AAA = '{1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4};
For efficiency I'd like to use repetition constructs, but that's when things are falling apart.
Is this not possible, or am I not writing this correctly? Any help is appreciated.
AAA = { '{4{1}}, '{3{2}}, '{2{3}}, 4 };
Firstly, the construct you are using is actually called the replication operator. This might help you in future searches, for example in the SystemVerilog LRM.
Secondly, you are using an array concatenation and not an array assignment in your last block of code (note the missing apostrophe '). The LRM gives the following (simple) example in Section 10.10.1 (Unpacked array concatenations compared with array assignment patterns) to explain the difference:
int A3[1:3];
A3 = {1, 2, 3}; // unpacked array concatenation
A3 = '{1, 2, 3}; // array assignment pattern
The LRM says in the same section that
...unpacked array concatenations forbid replication, defaulting, and
explicit typing, but they offer the additional flexibility of
composing an array value from an arbitrary mix of elements and arrays.
int A9[1:9];
A9 = {9{1}}; // illegal, no replication in unpacked array concatenation
Lets also have a look at the alternative: array assignment. In the same section, the LRM mentions that
...items in an assignment pattern can be replicated using syntax, such as '{ n{element} }, and can be defaulted using the default: syntax. However, every element item in an array assignment pattern must be of the same type as the element type of the target array.
If transforming it to an array assignment (by adding an apostrophe), your code actually translates to:
AAA = '{'{1,1,1,1}, '{2,2,2}, '{3,3}, 4};
This means that the SystemVerilog interpreter will only see 4 elements and it will complain that too few elements were given in the assignment.
In Section 10.9.1 (Array assignment patterns), the LRM says the following about this:
Concatenation braces are used to construct and deconstruct simple bit vectors. A similar syntax is used to support the construction and deconstruction of arrays. The expressions shall match element for element, and the braces shall match the array dimensions. Each expression item shall be evaluated in the context of an assignment to the type of the corresponding element in the array.
[...]
A syntax resembling replications (see 11.4.12.1) can be used in array assignment patterns as well. Each replication shall represent an entire single dimension.
To help interprete the bold text in the quote above, the LRM gives the following example:
int n[1:2][1:3] = '{2{'{3{y}}}}; // same as '{'{y,y,y},'{y,y,y}}
You can't do arbitrary replication of unpacked array elements.
If your code doesn't need to be synthesized, you can do
module top;
typedef logic [3:0] DAt[];
logic [3:0] AAA[0:9];
initial begin
AAA = {DAt'{4{1}}, DAt'{3{2}}, DAt'{2{3}}, 4};
$display("%p",AAA);
end
endmodule
I had another solution but I'm not sure if it is synthesizable. Would a streaming operator work here? I'm essentially taking a packed array literal and streaming it into the data structure AAA. I've put it on EDA Playground
module tb;
logic [3:0] AAA[0:9];
initial begin
AAA = { >> int {
{4{4'(1)}},
{3{4'(2)}},
{2{4'(3)}},
4'(4)
} };
$display("%p",AAA);
end
endmodule
Output:
Compiler version P-2019.06-1; Runtime version P-2019.06-1; Mar 25 11:20 2020
'{'h1, 'h1, 'h1, 'h1, 'h2, 'h2, 'h2, 'h3, 'h3, 'h4}
V C S S i m u l a t i o n R e p o r t
Time: 0 ns
CPU Time: 0.580 seconds; Data structure size: 0.0Mb
Wed Mar 25 11:20:07 2020
Done
In Kotlin, I see I can override some operators, such as + by function plus(), and * by function times() ... but for some things like Sets, the preferred (set theory) symbols/operators don't exist. For example A∩B for intersection and A∪B for union.
I can't seem to define my own operators, there is no clear syntax to say what symbol to use for an operator. For example if I want to make a function for $$ as an operator:
operator fun String.$$(other: String) = "$this !!whatever!! $other"
// or even
operator fun String.whatever(other: String) = "$this !!whatever!! $other" // how do I say this is the $$ symbol?!?
I get the same error for both:
Error:(y, x) Kotlin: 'operator' modifier is inapplicable on this function: illegal function name
What are the rules for what operators can be created or overridden?
Note: this question is intentionally written and answered by the author (Self-Answered Questions), so that the idiomatic answers to commonly asked Kotlin topics are present in SO.
Kotlin only allows a very specific set of operators to be overridden and you cannot change the list of available operators.
You should take care when overriding operators that you try to stay in the spirit of the original operator, or of other common uses of the mathematical symbol. But sometime the typical symbol isn't available. For example set Union ∪ can easily treated as + because conceptually it makes sense and that is a built-in operator Set<T>.plus() already provided by Kotlin, or you could get creative and use an infix function for this case:
// already provided by Kotlin:
// operator fun <T> Set<T>.plus(elements: Iterable<T>): Set<T>
// and now add my new one, lower case 'u' is pretty similar to math symbol ∪
infix fun <T> Set<T>.u(elements: Set<T>): Set<T> = this.plus(elements)
// and therefore use any of...
val union1 = setOf(1,2,5) u setOf(3,6)
val union2 = setOf(1,2,5) + setOf(3,6)
val union3 = setOf(1,2,5) plus setOf(3,6)
Or maybe it is more clear as:
infix fun <T> Set<T>.union(elements: Set<T>): Set<T> = this.plus(elements)
// and therefore
val union4 = setOf(1,2,5) union setOf(3,6)
And continuing with your list of Set operators, intersection is the symbol ∩ so assuming every programmer has a font where letter 'n' looks ∩ we could get away with:
infix fun <T> Set<T>.n(elements: Set<T>): Set<T> = this.intersect(elements)
// and therefore...
val intersect = setOf(1,3,5) n setOf(3,5)
or via operator overloading of * as:
operator fun <T> Set<T>.times(elements: Set<T>): Set<T> = this.intersect(elements)
// and therefore...
val intersect = setOf(1,3,5) * setOf(3,5)
Although you can already use the existing standard library infix function intersect() as:
val intersect = setOf(1,3,5) intersect setOf(3,5)
In cases where you are inventing something new you need to pick the closest operator or function name. For example negating a Set of enums, maybe use - operator (unaryMinus()) or the ! operator (not()):
enum class Things {
ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE
}
operator fun Set<Things>.unaryMinus() = Things.values().toSet().minus(this)
operator fun Set<Things>.not() = Things.values().toSet().minus(this)
// and therefore use any of...
val current = setOf(Things.THREE, Things.FIVE)
println(-current) // [ONE, TWO, FOUR]
println(-(-current)) // [THREE, FIVE]
println(!current) // [ONE, TWO, FOUR]
println(!!current) // [THREE, FIVE]
println(current.not()) // [ONE, TWO, FOUR]
println(current.not().not()) // [THREE, FIVE]
Be thoughtful since operator overloading can be very helpful, or it can lead to confusion and chaos. You have to decide what is best while maintaining code readability. Sometimes the operator is best if it fits the norm for that symbol, or an infix replacement that is similar to the original symbol, or using a descriptive word so that there is no chance of confusion.
Always check the Kotlin Stdlib API Reference because many operators you want might already be defined, or have equivalent extension functions.
One other thing...
And about your $$ operator, technically you can do that as:
infix fun String.`$$`(other: String) = "$this !!whatever!! $other"
But because you need to escape the name of the function, it will be ugly to call:
val text = "you should do" `$$` "you want"
That isn't truly operator overloading and only would work if it is a function that can me made infix.
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.
I would like to have a construct like below to declare variable names based on a string queue. The below doesn't compile. So I would like to know if a similar approach is possible in Systemverilog.
Below is a simplified version of what I want to actually implement.
`define declare_int(NAME) int ``NAME`` = 1;
string str_q[$] = {"a", "b", "c"};
foreach (str_q[i]) begin
`declare_int(str_q[i])
end
NOTE: I am aware that `declare_int(a) will translate to int a = 1;. But as shown in the example above, I need a foreach loop to call this macro multiple times and so the input of the macro has to be some datatype, like a string in this case. The purpose is to auto-declare stuff as the queue changes with time.
In other words, how can I define the `declare_int macro so that `declare_int("a") translates to int a = 1;?
As Verilog is not interpreted but compiled in simulation, I doubt theres any way to dynamically declare variables at runtime. However, there are work arounds that achieve a similar effect.
I think the closest thing you could get is an associative array with the keys as your names (a, b, c) and your values for the values. For example, instead of your code, you'd have:
int vars[string];
string str_q[$] = {"a", "b", "c"};
foreach (str_q[i]) begin
vars[str_q[i]] = 1;
end
...
// To use the variable, just do:
vars["a"];
For more on associative arrays: http://www.asic-world.com/systemverilog/data_types13.html