Does specman have something like lex_lt(s1,s2) methods? (i.e. compare strings by lexicographical order). If not, is there a recommended way to achieve the same?
It seems that there isn't. You can do 2 things here. You can either implement your own strcmp() style function in e and use that directly, or you can integrate Specman with a C file that wraps strcmp() in function that can be called from your e code. Have a look at the Specman Integrator's Guide section in the product manual for details on how to do this.
As far as I know, we don’t have something pre-defined for this.
But it can be done, for example, in the following ugly way:
if {s1;s2}.sort(it)[0] == s1 …. // if it’s TRUE, then s1 is less that s2, otherwise not
Of course, as Tudor suggested, the best way will be to define C routine to wrap strcmp().
Related
Suppose one needs to select the real solutions after solving some equation.
Is this the correct and optimal way to do it, or is there a better one?
restart;
mu := 3.986*10^5; T:= 8*60*60:
eq := T = 2*Pi*sqrt(a^3/mu):
sol := solve(eq,a);
select(x->type(x,'realcons'),[sol]);
I could not find real as type. So I used realcons. At first I did this:
select(x->not(type(x,'complex')),[sol]);
which did not work, since in Maple 5 is considered complex! So ended up with no solutions.
type(5,'complex');
(* true *)
Also I could not find an isreal() type of function. (unless I missed one)
Is there a better way to do this that one should use?
update:
To answer the comment below about 5 not supposed to be complex in maple.
restart;
type(5,complex);
true
type(5,'complex');
true
interface(version);
Standard Worksheet Interface, Maple 18.00, Windows 7, February
From help
The type(x, complex) function returns true if x is an expression of the form
a + I b, where a (if present) and b (if present) are finite and of type realcons.
Your solutions sol are all of type complex(numeric). You can select only the real ones with type,numeric, ie.
restart;
mu := 3.986*10^5: T:= 8*60*60:
eq := T = 2*Pi*sqrt(a^3/mu):
sol := solve(eq,a);
20307.39319, -10153.69659 + 17586.71839 I, -10153.69659 - 17586.71839 I
select( type, [sol], numeric );
[20307.39319]
By using the multiple argument calling form of the select command we here can avoid using a custom operator as the first argument. You won't notice it for your small example, but it should be more efficient to do so. Other commands such as map perform similarly, to avoid having to make an additional function call for each individual test.
The types numeric and complex(numeric) cover real and complex integers, rationals, and floats.
The types realcons and complex(realcons) includes the previous, but also allow for an application of evalf done during the test. So Int(sin(x),x=1..3) and Pi and sqrt(2) are all of type realcons since following an application of evalf they become floats of type numeric.
The above is about types. There are also properties to consider. Types are properties, but not necessarily vice versa. There is a real property, but no real type. The is command can test for a property, and while it is often used for mixed numeric-symbolic tests under assumptions (on the symbols) it can also be used in tests like yours.
select( is, [sol], real );
[20307.39319]
It is less efficient to use is for your example. If you know that you have a collection of (possibly non-real) floats then type,numeric should be an efficient test.
And, just to muddy the waters... there is a type nonreal.
remove( type, [sol], nonreal );
[20307.39319]
The one possibility is to restrict the domain before the calculation takes place.
Here is an explanation on the Maplesoft website regarding restricting the domain:
4 Basic Computation
UPD: Basically, according to this and that, 5 is NOT considered complex in Maple, so there might be some bug/error/mistake (try checking what may be wrong there).
For instance, try putting complex without quotes.
Your way seems very logical according to this.
UPD2: According to the Maplesoft Website, all the type checks are done with type() function, so there is rather no isreal() function.
How to simplify a given boolean expression with many variables (>10) so that the number of occurrences of each variable is minimized?
In my scenario, the value of a variable has to be considered ephemeral, that is, has to recomputed for each access (while still being static of course). I therefor need to minimize the number of times a variable has to be evaluated before trying to solve the function.
Consider the function
f(A,B,C,D,E,F) = (ABC)+(ABCD)+(ABEF)
Recursively using the distributive and absorption law one comes up with
f'(A,B,C,E,F) = AB(C+(EF))
I'm now wondering if there is an algorithm or method to solve this task in minimal runtime.
Using only Quine-McCluskey in the example above gives
f'(A,B,C,E,F) = (ABEF) + (ABC)
which is not optimal for my case. Is it save to assume that simplifying with QM first and then use algebra like above to reduce further is optimal?
I usually use Wolfram Alpha for this sort of thing.
Try Logic Friday 1
It features multi-level design of boolean circuits.
For your example, input and output look as follows:
You can use an online boolean expression calculator like https://www.dcode.fr/boolean-expressions-calculator
You can refer to Any good boolean expression simplifiers out there? it will definitely help.
How to check if the given value is a number in Prolog without using built-in predicates like number?
Let's say I have a list [a, 1, 2, 3]. I need a way to check if every element within this list is a number. The only part of the problem that bothers me is how to do the check itself without using the number predicate.
The reason why I'm trying to figure this out is that I've got a college assignment where it's specifically said not to use any of the built-in predicates.
You need some built-in predicate to solve this problem - unless you enumerate all numbers explicitly (which is not practical since there are infinitely many of them).
1
The most straight-forward would be:
maplist(number, L).
Or, recursively
allnumbers([]).
allnumbers([N|Ns]) :-
number(N),
allnumbers(Ns).
2
In a comment you say that "the value is given as an atom". That could mean that you get either [a, '1', '2'] or '[a, 1, 2]`. I assume the first. Here again, you need a built-in predicate to analyze the name. Relying on ISO-Prolog's errors we write:
numberatom(Atom) :-
atom_chars(Atom, Chs),
catch(number_chars(_, Chs), error(syntax_error(_),_), false).
Use numberatom/1 in place of number/1, So write a recurse rule or use maplist/2
3
You might want to write a grammar instead of the catch... goal. There have been many such definitions recently, you may look at this question.
4
If the entire "value" is given as an atom, you will need again atom_chars/2or you might want some implementation specific solution like atom_to_term/3 and then apply one of the solutions above.
I have defined a prolog file with the following code:
divisible(X, Y) :-
X mod Y =:= 0.
divisibleBy(X, Y) :-
divisible(X, Y).
op(35,xfx,divisibleBy).
Prolog is complaining that
'$record_clause'/2: No permission to modify static_procedure `op/3'
What am I doing wrong? I want to define an divisibleBy operator that will allow me to write code like the following:
4 divisibleBy 2
Thanks.
Use
:- op(35,xfx,divisibleBy).
:- tells the Prolog interpreter to evaluate the next term while loading the file, i.e. make a predicate call, instead of treating it as a definition (in this case a redefinition of op/3).
The answer given by #larsmans is spot-on regarding your original problem.
However, you should reconsider if you should define a new operator.
In general, I would strongly advise against defining new operators for the following reasons:
The gain in readability is often overrated.
It may easily introduce new problems in places you wouldn't normally expect buggy.
It doesn't "scale" well: a small number of operators can make code on presentation slides super-concise, but what if you add more discriminate union cases over time? More operators?
Sometimes I'm writing ugly if-else statements in C# 3.5; I'm aware of some different approaches to simplifying that with table-driven development, class hierarchy, anonimous methods and some more.
The problem is that alternatives are still less wide-spread than writing traditional ugly if-else statements because there is no convention for that.
What depth of nested if-else is normal for C# 3.5? What methods do you expect to see instead of nested if-else the first? the second?
if i have ten input parameters with 3 states in each, i should map functions to combination of each state of each parameter (really less, because not all the states are valid, but sometimes still a lot). I can express these states as a hashtable key and a handler (lambda) which will be called if key matches.
It is still mix of table-driven, data-driven dev. ideas and pattern matching.
what i'm looking for is extending for C# such approaches as this for scripting (C# 3.5 is rather like scripting)
http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2004/02/24/79292.aspx
Good question. "Conditional Complexity" is a code smell. Polymorphism is your friend.
Conditional logic is innocent in its infancy, when it’s simple to understand and contained within a
few lines of code. Unfortunately, it rarely ages well. You implement several new features and
suddenly your conditional logic becomes complicated and expansive. [Joshua Kerevsky: Refactoring to Patterns]
One of the simplest things you can do to avoid nested if blocks is to learn to use Guard Clauses.
double getPayAmount() {
if (_isDead) return deadAmount();
if (_isSeparated) return separatedAmount();
if (_isRetired) return retiredAmount();
return normalPayAmount();
};
The other thing I have found simplifies things pretty well, and which makes your code self-documenting, is Consolidating conditionals.
double disabilityAmount() {
if (isNotEligableForDisability()) return 0;
// compute the disability amount
Other valuable refactoring techniques associated with conditional expressions include Decompose Conditional, Replace Conditional with Visitor, Specification Pattern, and Reverse Conditional.
There are very old "formalisms" for trying to encapsulate extremely complex expressions that evaluate many possibly independent variables, for example, "decision tables" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_table
But, I'll join in the choir here to second the ideas mentioned of judicious use of the ternary operator if possible, identifying the most unlikely conditions which if met allow you to terminate the rest of the evaluation by excluding them first, and add ... the reverse of that ... trying to factor out the most probable conditions and states that can allow you to proceed without testing of the "fringe" cases.
The suggestion by Miriam (above) is fascinating, even elegant, as "conceptual art;" and I am actually going to try it out, trying to "bracket" my suspicion that it will lead to code that is harder to maintain.
My pragmatic side says there is no "one size fits all" answer here in the absence of a pretty specific code example, and complete description of the conditions and their interactions.
I'm a fan of "flag setting" : meaning anytime my application goes into some less common "mode" or "state" I set a boolean flag (which might even be static for the class) : for me that simplifies writing complex if/then else evaluations later on.
best, Bill
Simple. Take the body of the if and make a method out of it.
This works because most if statements are of the form:
if (condition):
action()
In other cases, more specifically :
if (condition1):
if (condition2):
action()
simplify to:
if (condition1 && condition2):
action()
I'm a big fan of the ternary operator which get's overlooked by a lot of people. It's great for assigning values to variables based on conditions. like this
foobarString = (foo == bar) ? "foo equals bar" : "foo does not equal bar";
Try this article for more info.
It wont solve all your problems, but it is very economical.
I know that this is not the answer you are looking for, but without context your questions is very hard to answer. The problem is that the way to refactor such a thing really depends on your code, what it is doing, and what you are trying to accomplish. If you had said that you were checking the type of an object in these conditionals we could throw out an answer like 'use polymorphism', but sometimes you actually do just need some if statements, and sometimes those statements can be refactored into something more simple. Without a code sample it is hard to say which category you are in.
I was told years ago by an instructor that 3 is a magic number. And as he applied it it-else statements he suggested that if I needed more that 3 if's then I should probably use a case statement instead.
switch (testValue)
{
case = 1:
// do something
break;
case = 2:
// do something else
break;
case = 3:
// do something more
break;
case = 4
// do what?
break;
default:
throw new Exception("I didn't do anything");
}
If you're nesting if statements more than 3 deep then you should probably take that as a sign that there is a better way. Probably like Avirdlg suggested, separating the nested if statements into 1 or more methods. If you feel you are absolutely stuck with multiple if-else statements then I would wrap all the if-else statements into a single method so it didn't ugly up other code.
If the entire purpose is to assign a different value to some variable based upon the state of various conditionals, I use a ternery operator.
If the If Else clauses are performing separate chunks of functionality. and the conditions are complex, simplify by creating temporary boolean variables to hold the true/false value of the complex boolean expressions. These variables should be suitably named to represent the business sense of what the complex expression is calculating. Then use the boolean variables in the If else synatx instead of the complex boolean expressions.
One thing I find myself doing at times is inverting the condition followed by return; several such tests in a row can help reduce nesting of if and else.
Not a C# answer, but you probably would like pattern matching. With pattern matching, you can take several inputs, and do simultaneous matches on all of them. For example (F#):
let x=
match cond1, cond2, name with
| _, _, "Bob" -> 9000 // Bob gets 9000, regardless of cond1 or 2
| false, false, _ -> 0
| true, false, _ -> 1
| false, true, _ -> 2
| true, true, "" -> 0 // Both conds but no name gets 0
| true, true, _ -> 3 // Cond1&2 give 3
You can express any combination to create a match (this just scratches the surface). However, C# doesn't support this, and I doubt it will any time soon. Meanwhile, there are some attempts to try this in C#, such as here: http://codebetter.com/blogs/matthew.podwysocki/archive/2008/09/16/functional-c-pattern-matching.aspx. Google can turn up many more; perhaps one will suit you.
try to use patterns like strategy or command
In simple cases you should be able to get around with basic functional decomposition. For more complex scenarios I used Specification Pattern with great success.