What I want is roughly equivalent to
df.where(<condition>).count() != 0
But I'm pretty sure it's not quite smart enough to stop once it finds any such violation. I would expect some sort of aggregator to be able to do this, but I haven't found one? I could do it with a max and some sort of conversion, but again I don't think it would necessarily know to quit (not being specific to bool, I'm not sure if understands no value is larger than true).
More specifically, I want to check if a column contains only a single element. Right now my best idea is to do this is by grabbing the first value and comparing everything.
I would try this option, it should be much faster:
df.where(<condition>).head(1).isEmpty
You can also try to define your conditions on a row together with scala's exists (which stops at the first occurence of true):
df.mapPartitions(rows => if(rows.exists(row => <condition>)) Iterator(1) else Iterator.empty).isEmpty
At the end you should benchmark the alternatives
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.
Would the increment happen Left to right or right to left in the following case:
desc.src_addr = {rdata[i++],rdata[i++],rdata[i++],rdata[i++],rdata[i++],rdata[i++],rdata[i++],rdata[i++]};
Assuming i = 0 at the start of the above statement, would the end resolution be which of the two below:
desc.src_addr = {rdata[0],rdata[1],rdata[2],rdata[3],rdata[4],rdata[5],rdata[6],rdata[7]};
desc.src_addr = {rdata[7],rdata[6],rdata[5],rdata[4],rdata[3],rdata[2],rdata[1],rdata[0]};
Is there anything in LRM that talks about this?
Obviously, my aim is to avoid hardcoding the indices in the above statement to avoid typo and oversight issues.
Yes, it would be good to know what the SystemVerilog LRM says when writing SystemVerilog code. Do you have a copy?
See section 11.4.2 Increment and decrement operators and look for the word undefined.
A much better way of writing this code would be using the streaming operator, section 11.4.14 Streaming operators (pack/unpack)
desc.src_addr = {<<{rdata}}; //reverses bit order
I am tutoring someone in basic search and sorts. In insertion sort I iterate negatively when I have a value that is greater than the one previous to it in numerical terms. Now of course this approach can cause issues because there is a check which calls for array[-1] which does not exist.
As underlined in bold below, adding the and x > 0 boolean prevents the index issue.
My question is how is this the case? Wouldn't the call for array[-1] still be made to ensure the validity of both booleans?
the_list = [10,2,4,3,5,7,8,9,6]
for x in range(1,len(the_list)):
value = the_list[x]
while value < the_list[x-1] **and x > 0**:
the_list[x] = the_list[x-1]
x=x-1
the_list[x] = value
print the_list
I'm not sure I completely understand the question, and I don't know what programming language this is, but most modern programming languages use so-called short-circuit Boolean evaluation by default so that the logical expression isn't evaluated further once the outcome is known.
You can use that to guard against range overflow, like this:
while x > 0 and value < the_list[x-1]
but the check of x's range here must come before the use.
AND operation returns true if and only if both arguments are true, so if one of arguments is false there's no point of checking others as the final value is already known at that point. As for your example, usually evaluation goes from left to right but it is not a principle and it looks the language you used is not following that rule (othewise it still should crash on array lookup). But ut may be, this particular implementation optimizes this somehow (which IMHO is not good idea) and evaluates "simpler" things first (like checking if x > 0) before it look up the array. check the specs why this exact order works for you as in most popular languages you would still crash if test x > 0 wouldn't be evaluated before lookup
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.