If you define a DSL file with some lines, and one of them uses a variable, you cannot use it twice in a rule because you will get a duplicate variable error.
What's the best way to avoid this? Ideally I would like to avoid to create two copies of the DSL line to just change the variable name.
ie, the DSL line:
[when][]For all qualifications of type Higher=$highers: Higher()
this cannot be used twice in the same rule or we get a duplicate $highers variable.
You can synthesize the name of a binding variable like any other chunk of text:
[when][]there is a qualification of type {qualification}=
${qualification}: {qualification}()
But it's going to be tricky because you'll have to make references to this variable variable variable, too:
[then] print {qualification}=System.out.println( ${qualification} );
instead of the straightforward
[then] print qualification=System.out.println( $qualification );
A lurking danger is that the amount of text that remains as a "landmark" around the macro variables is reduced which may result in multiple matches.
Related
I am working on a project that deals with lots of atomic operations. Till now I didn’t knew about atomic_load() and was only relying on assignment operator to get value of an atomic type and I haven’t seen an error except of so much of testing. Those atomic types are changed by multiple processes and threads as well by atomic_compare_exchange_strong_explicit(), so they will need an old value every time, and that’s where I always did oldValue = <Atomic_ type_variable> and it always works fine.
Is that just by chance? Should I prefer using atomic_load()?
foo = atomic_var is just a shortcut syntax for foo = atomic_load(&atomic_var);
Which itself is a shortcut for foo = atomic_load_explicit(&atomic_var, memory_order_seq_cst); That has a use-case when you want to use an ordering weaker than the default seq_cst.
The main reason for using atomic_load explicitly in your source code is probably to remind human readers that a variable or pointer is atomic. Or maybe as a part of a macro, using atomic_load(&(macro_input)) would create a compile-time error for a non-atomic pointer.
As a "generic" function, you can't take a normal function-pointer to it.
Its existence may be just to make it easier to write the language standard, and explain everything in terms of functions.
It's not the actual assignment that's key here, it's evaluating the atomic variable in an rvalue context (reading it's value as part of an expression, like you typically find on the right-hand side of an =). printf("%d\n", my_atomic_var); is also equivalent to atomic_load.
And BTW, the same thing holds for atomic_var = foo; being exactly the same as atomic_store_explicit with mo_seq_cst. Here it is assignment that's key.
Other kinds of lvalue references to an atomic variable are different, like read-modify-write atomic_var++ is equivalent to atomic_fetch_add.
In Matlab, it is easy to generate "help" for a function, as follows.
function out = foo()
% helpful information about foo
end
When we execute help foo, we get "helpful information about foo".
However, suppose we would like to define help for a variable, probably as a definition. How could we do such a thing? It would be nice if we could do something like
x = 3; % m ... position
help x
and get "m ... position". However, I don't believe such functionality exists.
The only reasonable way I see around this is to define every variable as a struct with keys value and description.
x.value = 3;
x.description = 'm/s ... position';
This requires we define every variable as a struct, which is kind of annoying and, I worry (should I?), unperformant (it's simulation code and these variables are accessed repeatedly).
Is there another solution I'm not considering? Should I be worried about making every variable a struct?
Your code should be self-documenting. Instead of variable name x, use position.
Furthermore, all variables should be local, so you can easily look for its definition (with comment) within the function you are editing.
Variables declared further away (with larger scope within the function) should have longer, more self-explanatory names than variables with a smaller scope (e.g. use within a short loop.
There are only two three cases where variables are declared outside the function’s scope:
Class properties. You can actually document these.
In a script, you have access to variables that already existed before the script started. A good reason not to use scripts or depend on the base namespace in larger projects.
Global variables. You should never use global variables for many reasons. Just don’t.
By default, when IPython displays an object, it seems to use __repr__.
__repr__ is supposed to produce a unique string which could be used to reconstruct an object, given the right environment.
This is distinct from __str__, which supposed to produce human-readable output.
Now suppose we've written a particular class and we'd like IPython to produce human readable output by default (i.e. without explicitly calling print or __str__).
We don't want to fudge it by making our class's __repr__ do __str__'s job.
That would be breaking the rules.
Is there a way to tell IPython to invoke __str__ by default for a particular class?
This is certainly possible; you just need implement the instance method _repr_pretty_(self). This is described in the documentation for IPython.lib.pretty. Its implementation could look something like this:
class MyObject:
def _repr_pretty_(self, p, cycle):
p.text(str(self) if not cycle else '...')
The p parameter is an instance of IPython.lib.pretty.PrettyPrinter, whose methods you should use to output the text representation of the object you're formatting. Usually you will use p.text(text) which just adds the given text verbatim to the formatted representation, but you can do things like starting and ending groups if your class represents a collection.
The cycle parameter is a boolean that indicates whether a reference cycle is detected - that is, whether you're trying to format the object twice in the same call stack (which leads to an infinite loop). It may or may not be necessary to consider it depending on what kind of object you're using, but it doesn't hurt.
As a bonus, if you want to do this for a class whose code you don't have access to (or, more accurately, don't want to) modify, or if you just want to make a temporary change for testing, you can use the IPython display formatter's for_type method, as shown in this example of customizing int display. In your case, you would use
get_ipython().display_formatter.formatters['text/plain'].for_type(
MyObject,
lambda obj, p, cycle: p.text(str(obj) if not cycle else '...')
)
with MyObject of course representing the type you want to customize the printing of. Note that the lambda function carries the same signature as _repr_pretty_, and works the same way.
I'm trying to overwrite the parameter handler, so it'd point to another temp-table with different schema.
myProcedure.p
DEFINE TEMP-TABLE TT_RealTable NO-UNDO
BEFORE-TABLE TT_RealTableBefore
FIELD name AS CHAR
.
DEF INPUT-OUTPUT PARAM TABLE-HANDLE TH_NewTable.
CREATE TT_RealTable.
ASSIGN TT_RealTable.name = "Ben".
CREATE TT_RealTable.
ASSIGN TT_RealTable.name = "Harry".
The TH_NewTable points to a random parameter TEMP-TABLE with different schema and contents. I want to overwrite this parameter TABLE-HANDLER with the TT_RealTable. If I try to set:
TH_NewTable = TEMP-TABLE TT_RealTable:HANDLE.
The program will crash at runtime saying that TT_RealTable's schema/meta data doesn't match the handler's one.
How I can overwrite the handler to point to my TT_RealTable:HANDLE, and return it as output?
If the schema IS different as the error claims, and you said at the beginning of your post, what you want to do can't be done. You can't pass a temp-table buffer handle that has a certain definition and return something else at the end of the procedure, assuming the parameter table handle is from a static temp-table. Even if it isn't, you'd need to create the temp-table using the buffer handle AFTER calling the procedure, which I'm thinking is not what you want, since your parameter is input-output.
If you really want to work with a table that's fluid as far as schema goes, you should read into dynamic temp-tables. Look for the CREATE TEMP-TABLE statement in help and read through the examples to understand how you can get a handle and then (and only then) build a temp-table using the returned handle, so you can use that. You lose the ability of using regular statements, though, such as create and assign. You'll have to reference BUFFER-FIELD and BUFFER-VALUE, and use the CREATE method instead, using the buffer-handle. Might take a while to get used to it, but it's not rocket science.
Hope it helps!
When I pass a hash reference to a subroutine, what is a good naming convention for the variable to which the hash ref parameter is assigned?
In the example below, what is the better option:
Use the same variable name as the original variable (and let Perl hide the original within the block).
Come up with a new name for the hash ref within the subroutine?
I am inclined to use option 1, because a new name for the same hash reference feels redundant.
If option 2 is better, what would be a good naming convention for the variable within the subroutine ?
## example:
use strict;
use warnings;
my $href_phone_book = generate_phone_book();
my $phone_number = get_phone_number($href_phone_book, "john");
print $phone_number."\n";
sub generate_phone_book {
my %phone_book = (
john => "5554321",
alice => "5551234"
);
return \%phone_book;
}
sub get_phone_number{
# Is it OK to hide the original variable
my $href_phone_book = shift;
# Or should I use a new variable name? What would then be a good naming convention?
my $person = shift;
my $phone_number = $href_phone_book->{$person};
return $phone_number;
}
You should name your variables for the data that they reference. Ideally you should use a short non-ambiguous name, and remove context where possible. For example if your function did something that would apply generically to any hash reference, the name $hash_ref would be preferable IMO to $phone_book
1. Use the same variable name as the original variable (and let Perl hide the original within the block).
Although not a generically safe assumption, it is what I would do in your example. I would use $phone_book as the single param.
Note if you are using the same reference data structure repeatedly as a parameter to functions, then it points to writing some OO Perl. You should probably create a class, with the data structure the object, and functions changed to instance methods.
Caveat: Your example script will generate a warning due to variable scope. So my advice needs to be modified. I would not alter the subroutine's variable but instead name the global variable something like $main_phone_book . . . but this is only necessary due to the structure of your example script. Ideally you should avoid global data structures, and use modularisation (a PhoneBook.pm file that contained all the logic for handling phone numbers, whether exported functions or a new class, would not have a clash on the variable name because of package namespaces). Or if the variables are truly global to the problem at hand you probably would not be passing them as parameters at all.
2. Come up with a new name for the hash ref within the subroutine?
In this case it is only necessary due to file structure of the example script. Consistency, at least at the level of individual scripts and modules, is more important than finding some special naming convention that can handle all your needs.
I suggest you read the variable naming convention chapters of Perl Best Practices. It is very clear and useful advice.