I want to create an Elixir macro that converts a list of atoms [:a, :b] to vars a, b. The value of a and b can be anything -- all that I want to achieve is creating a variable with the readable name of the atom passed in. Is this possible? If so, how?
This can be done using Macro.var/1
Related
I am working with Stata.
I have a variable called graduate_secondary.
I generate a global variable called outcome, because eventually I will use another outcome.
Now I want to replace the variable graduate if a condition relative to global is met, but I get an error:
My code is:
global outcome "graduate_secondary"
gen graduate=.
replace graduate=1 if graduate_primary==1 & `outcome'==1
But i receive the symbol ==1 invalid name.
Does anyone know why?
Something along those lines might work (using a reproducible example):
sysuse auto, clear
global outcome "rep78"
gen graduate=.
replace graduate=1 if mpg==22 & $outcome==3
(2 real changes made)
In your example, just use
replace graduate=1 if graduate_primary==1 & $outcome==1
would work.
Another solution is to replace global outcome "graduate_secondary" with local outcome "graduate_secondary".
Stata has two types of macros: global, which are accessed with a $, and local, which are accessed with single quotes `' around the name -- as you did in your original code.
You get an error message because a local by the name of outcome has no value assigned to it in your workspace. By design, this will not itself produce an error but instead will the reference to the macro will evaluate as a blank value. You can see the result of evaluating macro references when you type them by using display as follows. You can also see all of the macros in your workspace with macro dir (the locals start with an underscore):
display `outcome'
display $outcome
Here is a blog post about using macros in Stata. In general, I only use global macros when I have to pass something between multiple routines, but this seems like a good use case for locals.
The array is expecting a literal value
set chrom [forage_min forage_rate share_min share_rate mating_treshold]
print chrom
How can I handle it? I really don't understand arrays in Netlogo.
(You speak of "arrays" in your question, but I think you mean "lists". It is possible to use arrays in NetLogo via the array extension, but unless you have very specific needs, that's probably not what you want. So, assuming that you are trying to create a list:)
The square bracket syntax for declaring lists only works with "literal" values, e.g., raw strings or numbers. If you want to build a list out of variables or more complex expressions, you need to use the list primitive. In your case, that would be something like:
set chrom (list forage_min forage_rate share_min share_rate mating_treshold)
I would encourage you to read the Lists section of the NetLogo programming guide.
I was looking at the source for the r_str macro in Julia, which parses r"text" into Regex("text"). The second argument is flags..., which passes flags into the regex, like i for case insensitive, and so on.
I was playing with this myself and got:
julia> macro a_str(p, flags...)
print(flags)
p
end
julia> a"abc"iii
("iii",)"abc"
So it seems that the iii is all passed in as the first flag. In that case, why is there the ... on the flags. Is it possible to pass in more than one element of flags to the macro?
When this question was originally asked, a macro expander – i.e. the function defined with the macro keyword, which is called to transform the expressions passed to a macro into a single output expression – was not a generic function, but rather an anonymous function, which were a different kind of function in Julia 0.4 and earlier. At that point, the only way to write an anonymous function signature which could work for either one or two arguments was to use a trailing varargs argument, which is why this pattern was used to define string macros. In Julia 0.5 all functions have become generic functions, including anonymous functions and macro expanders. Thus, you can now write a macro a variety of ways, including the old way of using a varargs argument after the string argument:
# old style
macro rm_str(raw, rest...)
remove = isempty(rest) ? "aeiouy" : rest[1]
replace(raw, collect(remove), "")
end
# new style with two methods
macro rm_str(raw)
replace(raw, ['a','e','i','o','u','y'], "")
end
macro rm_str(raw, remove)
replace(raw, collect(remove), "")
end
# new style with default second argument
macro rm_str(raw, remove="aeiouy")
replace(raw, collect(remove), "")
end
These all result in the same non-standard string literal behavior:
julia> rm"foo bar baz"
"f br bz"
julia> rm"foo bar baz"abc
"foo r z"
The string literal produces the string with the flagged letters stripped from it, defaulting to stripping out all the ASCII vowels ("aeiouy"). The new approach of using a second argument with a default is the easiest and clearest in this case, as it will be in many cases, but now you can use whichever approach is best for the circumstances.
With an explicit call like
#a_str("abc", "iii", "jjj")
you can pass multiple flags. But I'm not aware of a way to make this work with a"abc"ijk syntax.
I don't believe it is possible, and the documentation doesn't provide an example where that would be used. In addition, the mostly-fully-compliant JuliaParser.jl doesn't support multiple flags either. Perhaps open an PR on Julia changing that?
The difference between the two is not so clear from the Cadence documentation.
Could someone please elaborate on the difference between the two?
A define as macro is just a plain old macro that you probably know from other programming languages. It just means that at some select locations in the macro code you can substitute your own code.
A define as computed macro allows you to construct your output code programmatically, by using control flow statements (if, for, etc.). It acts kind of like a function that returns a string, with the return value being the code that will be inserted in its place by the pre-processor.
With both define as and define as computed macros you define a new syntactic construct of a given syntactic category (for example, <statement> or <action>), and you implement the replacement code that replaces a construct matching the macro match expression (or pattern).
In both cases the macro match expression can have syntactic arguments that are used inside the replacement code and are substituted with the actual code strings used in the matched code.
The difference is that with a define as macro the replacement code is just written in the macro body.
With a define as computed macro you write a procedural code that computes the desired replacement code text and returns it as a string. It's effectively a method that returns string, you can even use the result keyword to assign the resulting string, just like in any e method.
A define as computed macro is useful when the replacement code is not fixed, and can be different depending on the exact macro argument values or even semantic context (for example, in some cases a reflection query can be used to decide on the exact replacement code).
(But it's important to remember that even define as computed macros are executed during compilation and not at run time, so they cannot query actual run time values of fields or variables to decide on the resulting replacement code).
Here are some important differences between the two macro kinds.
A define as macro is more readable and usually easier to write. You just write down the code that you want to be created.
Define as computed macros are stronger. Everything that can be implemented with define as, can also be implemented with define as computed, but not vice versa. When the replacement code is not fixed, define as is not sufficient.
A define as macro can be used immediately after its definition. If the construct it introduces is used in the statement just following the macro, it will already be matched. A define as computed macro can only be used in the next file, and is not usable in the same file in which the macro is defined.
What is the easiest (or the best) way to implement macro definitions in ANTLR?
What I want is a mechanism similar to the one that is present in C/C++ language:
#define FUNCTION(a, b) a+b
#define PI 3.1415
How and when should I perform replacement?
If you are doing a pre-processor in the style of C, then you will want to do a separate first pass for pre-processing (which is what this term means - a processing pass before your standard lex/parse pass).
Exactly how you want to do the pass is up to you - you can pass your input text to one grammar in antlr, take the result and hand that off to another grammar, etc.
Or you can create separate programs, which are able to take input on stdin and output to stdout, or pass text between pipes, etc.
Once you have that worked out, its a simple matter of looking for your keywords. Check every token that you see against your table of #defines, and if it matches, replace it with the definition that you have. You will also have to be able to parse function parameters, but that shouldn't add too much effort.