I've researched this in Swift and am confused on where custom subscripts are useful compared to methods and functions. What is the power in using them rather than using a method/func?
It's purely stylistic. Use a subscript whenever you'd prefer this syntax:
myObject[mySubscript] = newValue
over this one:
myObject.setValue(newValue, forSubscript: mySubscript)
Subscripts are more concise and, when used in appropriate situations, clearer in intent.
Which is an easier, clearer way to refer to an array element: myArray[1] or myArray.objectAtIndex(1)?
Would you like to saymyArray[1...3], or would it by just fine if you had to say something like myArray.sliceFromIndex(1).throughIndex(3) every time?
And hey, you know what? Arithmetic operators are also just functions. So don't we abandon them, so we'd have to say something like
let sum = a.addedTo(b.multipliedBy(c))
Wouldn't that be just the same really? What's the power in having arithmetic operators really?
Related
According to this manual page, we can use reduce to perform reduction like
summation (+):
var a = (+ reduce A) / num;
var b = + reduce abs(A);
var c = sqrt(+ reduce A**2);
and maximum value/location:
var (maxVal, maxLoc) = maxloc reduce zip(A, A.domain);
Here, Chapel defines reduce to be an infix operator rather than a function (e.g., reduce( A, + )). IMHO, the latter form seems to be a bit more readable because the arguments are always separated by parentheses. So I am wondering if there is some reason for this choice (e.g., to simplify some parallel syntax) or just a matter of history (convention)?
I'd say the answer is a matter of history / convention. A lot of Chapel's array and domain features were heavily inspired by the ZPL language from the University of Washington, and I believe this syntax was taken reasonably directly from ZPL.
At the time, we didn't have a notion of passing things like functions and operators around in Chapel, which is probably one of the reasons that we didn't consider more of a function-based approach. (Even now, first-class function support in Chapel is still somewhat in its infancy, and I don't believe we have a way to pass operators around).
I'd also say that Chapel is a language that generally favors syntax for key patterns rather than taking more of a "make everything look like a function / method call" approach (e.g., ranges are supported via a literal syntax and several key operators rather than using an object type with methods).
None of this is to say that the choice was obviously right or couldn't be reconsidered.
I know that we can use
/// index variable
var i = 0
as a documentation comment for a single variable.
How can we do the same for a loop variable?
The following does not work:
var array = [0]
/// index variable
for i in array.indices {
// ...
}
or
var array = [0]
for /** index variable */ i in array.indices {
// ...
}
Background:
The reason why I don’t use "good" variable names is that I’m implementing a numerical algorithm which is derived using mathematical notation. It has in this case only single letter variable names. In order to better see the connection between the derivation and the implementation I use the same variable names.
Now I want to comment on the variables in code.
The use of /// is primarily intended for use of documenting the API of of a class, struct, etc. in Swift.
So if used before a class, func, a var/let in a class/struct, etc. you are attaching documentation to that code aspect that Xcode understands how to show inline. It doesn’t know how to pickup that information for things inside of function since at this time that is not the intention of /// (it may work for simple var/let but not likely fully on purpose).
Instead use a simple // code comment for the benefit of any those working in the code however avoid over documenting the code since good code is likely fairly self explaining to anyone versed in the language and adding unneeded documentations can get in the way of just reading the code.
This is a good reference for code documentation in Swift at this time Swift Documentation
I woud strongly push back on something like this if I saw it in a PR. i is a massively well adopted "term of art" for loop indices. Generally, if your variable declaration name needs to be commented, you need a better variable name. There are some exceptions, such as when it stores data with complicated uses/invariants that can't be captured in a better way in a type system.
I think commenting is one area that beginners get wrong, mainly from being misled by teachers or by not yet fully understanding the purpose of comments. Comments don't exist to create an english based, psuedo-programming language in which your entire app will be duplicated. Understanding the programming language is a minimal expectation out of contributors to a project. Absolutely no comments should be explaining programming language features. E.g. var x: Int = 0 // declares a new mutable variable called x, to the Int value 0, with the exception of tutorials for learning Swift.
Commenting in this manner might seem like it's helpful, because you could argue it explains things for beginners. That may be the case, but it's suffocating for all other readers. Imagine if novel had to define all the English words they used.
Instead, the goal of documentation to explain the purpose and the use of things. To answer such questions as:
Why did you implement something this way, and not another way?
What purpose does this method serve?
When will this method of my delegate be called?
Case Study: Equatable
For a good example, take a look at the documentation of Equatable
Some things to notice:
It's written for an audience of Swift developers. It uses many things, which it does not explain such as, arrays, strings, constants, variable declaration, assignment, if statements, method calls (such as Array.contains(_:)), string interpolation, the print function.
It explains the general purpose of this protocol.
It explains how to use this protocol
It explains how you can adopt this protocol for your own use
It documents contractual requirements that cannot be enforced by the type system.
Since equality between instances of Equatable types is an equivalence relation, any of your custom types that conform to Equatable must satisfy three conditions, for any values a, b, and c:
a == a is always true (Reflexivity)
a == b implies b == a (Symmetry)
a == b and b == c implies a == c (Transitivity)
It explains possible misconceptions about the protocol ("Equality is Separate From Identity")
What is the difference between = and := in Scala?
I have googled extensively for "scala colon-equals", but was unable to find anything definitive.
= in scala is the actual assignment operator -- it does a handful of specific things that for the most part you don't have control over, such as
Giving a val or var a value when it's created
Changing the value of a var
Changing the value of a field on a class
Making a type alias
Probably others
:= is not a built-in operator -- anyone can overload it and define it to mean whatever they like. The reason people like to use := is because it looks very assignmenty and is used as an assignment operator in other languages.
So, if you're trying to find out what := means in the particular library you're using... my advice is look through the Scaladocs (if they exist) for a method named :=.
from Martin Odersky:
Initially we had colon-equals for assignment—just as in Pascal, Modula, and Ada—and a single equals sign for equality. A lot of programming theorists would argue that that's the right way to do it. Assignment is not equality, and you should therefore use a different symbol for assignment. But then I tried it out with some people coming from Java. The reaction I got was, "Well, this looks like an interesting language. But why do you write colon-equals? What is it?" And I explained that its like that in Pascal. They said, "Now I understand, but I don't understand why you insist on doing that." Then I realized this is not something we wanted to insist on. We didn't want to say, "We have a better language because we write colon-equals instead of equals for assignment." It's a totally minor point, and people can get used to either approach. So we decided to not fight convention in these minor things, when there were other places where we did want to make a difference.
from The Goals of Scala's Design
= performs assignment. := is not defined in the standard library or the language specification. It's a name that is free for other libraries or your code to use, if you wish.
Scala allows for operator overloading, where you can define the behaviour of an operator just like you could write a method.
As in other languages, = is an assignment operator.
The is no standard operator I'm aware of called :=, but could define one with this name. If you see an operator like this, you should check up the documentation of whatever you're looking at, or search for where that operator is defined.
There is a lot you can do with Scala operators. You can essentially make an operator out of virtually any characters you like.
I feel like using operators overloading adds unnecessary complexity and ambiguity to the code.
Does it have its benefits in real-world cases where it's worth to use custom operators or overload existing operators instead of using functions or object methods?
Is it used on a regular basis or more just a funny exotic stuff to add a language a bit more hipness?
The main reason for overloading is comfort of using custom class with mathematic or logic background
like:
vectors
matrices
complex numbers
phasors,tensors,quaternions,...
finite fields
big-numbers (arbnum,biginteger,bigdecimal...)
custom precision floating and fixed formats
predicates,boolean,fuzy and probabilistic
strings,lists,ques
and much much more
If coded right you can write math equations directly and not bother to convert to set of function calls. The reading and understanding math code is much simpler and straightforward with operators.
Sometimes even non strictly math classes are used this way for example images or signals. In DIP/CV there are usually math/physics equations applied on those and overloaded operators make that more simple.
For the non-math classes
are operators usually useless/meaningless (as you feel) except for special operator= which is crucial for any class/struct with dynamic allocation members. Without it things like std:vector<> will not work properly.
Another example are comparison operators which are sometimes implemented for non math classes to make sorting easier.
from wiki
operator overloading—less commonly known as operator ad hoc polymorphism—is a specific case of polymorphism, where different operators have different implementations depending on their arguments
Swift has over 40 operators, all of them are overloaded and we are using them on regular bases. Do you prefer let sum = value.plus(anotherValue) over let sum = value + anotherValue ?? I am sure, you don't! If the value is custom type conforming to protocol Equatable, == operator must be overloaded and we do it regularly.
Is it a good idea to use custom defined operators (like ±, <*> etc ...)? In that area I am not sure. I am not big fan of this ...
Is it a good idea to overload + operator for something else than sum ? No, definitely not!
What is the difference between = and := in Scala?
I have googled extensively for "scala colon-equals", but was unable to find anything definitive.
= in scala is the actual assignment operator -- it does a handful of specific things that for the most part you don't have control over, such as
Giving a val or var a value when it's created
Changing the value of a var
Changing the value of a field on a class
Making a type alias
Probably others
:= is not a built-in operator -- anyone can overload it and define it to mean whatever they like. The reason people like to use := is because it looks very assignmenty and is used as an assignment operator in other languages.
So, if you're trying to find out what := means in the particular library you're using... my advice is look through the Scaladocs (if they exist) for a method named :=.
from Martin Odersky:
Initially we had colon-equals for assignment—just as in Pascal, Modula, and Ada—and a single equals sign for equality. A lot of programming theorists would argue that that's the right way to do it. Assignment is not equality, and you should therefore use a different symbol for assignment. But then I tried it out with some people coming from Java. The reaction I got was, "Well, this looks like an interesting language. But why do you write colon-equals? What is it?" And I explained that its like that in Pascal. They said, "Now I understand, but I don't understand why you insist on doing that." Then I realized this is not something we wanted to insist on. We didn't want to say, "We have a better language because we write colon-equals instead of equals for assignment." It's a totally minor point, and people can get used to either approach. So we decided to not fight convention in these minor things, when there were other places where we did want to make a difference.
from The Goals of Scala's Design
= performs assignment. := is not defined in the standard library or the language specification. It's a name that is free for other libraries or your code to use, if you wish.
Scala allows for operator overloading, where you can define the behaviour of an operator just like you could write a method.
As in other languages, = is an assignment operator.
The is no standard operator I'm aware of called :=, but could define one with this name. If you see an operator like this, you should check up the documentation of whatever you're looking at, or search for where that operator is defined.
There is a lot you can do with Scala operators. You can essentially make an operator out of virtually any characters you like.