I was asked this question in an interview.
Write a c# program which will print out all the errors in a statement.
(a + b == 3 and x == y or b / c == d)
Allowed keywords are and/or, braces are allowed and have to match. The statement has to be logically correct. Print out all the errors.
Something like a compiler or sql analyzer.
Any idea how to go about syntax checking?
You're being asked to build a parser.
The computer science theory behind compilers is extensive and complex. To keep it simple, I recommend reading Jack Crenshaw's compiler tutorial. It will show you in the first few chapters how to do exactly this by building a top-down recursive descent parser. His example is almost exactly what you're trying to do. It's in Pascal, but it's still easy enough to follow and the concept still applies.
Google for "jack crenshaw let's build a compiler", or browse to:
http://compilers.iecc.com/crenshaw/
That's actually pretty complicated if you want to get it 100% right. The direction to research would have to do with the keywords "finite state automata", "regular expressions" (not to be confused with Regex) and "context-free grammars". Also there's an approach called "recursive descent parser" but you'll need to understand the above concepts first.
Matching brackets and parenthesis is easy.
string expression = "(a + b + (c + d) )";
int brackets = 0;
int parenthesis = 0;
foreach(char c in expression)
{
if(c == '(') ) parenthesis++;
if(c == ')') ) parenthesis--;
if(parenthesis < 0) { // ERROR!!! }
// Same logic with brackets
}
if (parenthesis != 0) { ERROR!!! }
Also, I would use a similar approach with "statements mergers" ( +, -, *, / ) and "statements comparators" ( ==, !=, <, <=, ... )
For each word in your expression, only a few valid keywords can follow.
As it was mentionned before, writing parsers is a difficult task, planning every exception case right away is hardly possible. This should be the general idea instead of a definitive solution.
On a final note, it is perfectly ok to have multiple passes to scan for different things. First pass is brackts/parenthesis only, then check for something else in another loop.
Related
In scala, pattern match has guard pattern:
val ch = 23
val sign = ch match {
case _: Int if 10 < ch => 65
case '+' => 1
case '-' => -1
case _ => 0
}
Is the Raku version like this?
my $ch = 23;
given $ch {
when Int and * > 10 { say 65}
when '+' { say 1 }
when '-' { say -1 }
default { say 0 }
}
Is this right?
Update: as jjmerelo suggested, i post my result as follows, the signature version is also interesting.
multi washing_machine(Int \x where * > 10 ) { 65 }
multi washing_machine(Str \x where '+' ) { 1 }
multi washing_machine(Str \x where '-' ) { -1 }
multi washing_machine(\x) { 0 }
say washing_machine(12); # 65
say washing_machine(-12); # 0
say washing_machine('+'); # 1
say washing_machine('-'); # -1
say washing_machine('12'); # 0
say washing_machine('洗衣机'); # 0
TL;DR I've written another answer that focuses on using when. This answer focuses on using an alternative to that which combines Signatures, Raku's powerful pattern matching construct, with a where clause.
"Does pattern match in Raku have guard clause?"
Based on what little I know about Scala, some/most Scala pattern matching actually corresponds to using Raku signatures. (And guard clauses in that context are typically where clauses.)
Quoting Martin Odersky, Scala's creator, from The Point of Pattern Matching in Scala:
instead of just matching numbers, which is what switch statements do, you match what are essentially the creation forms of objects
Raku signatures cover several use cases (yay, puns). These include the Raku equivalent of the functional programming paradigmatic use in which one matches values' or functions' type signatures (cf Haskell) and the object oriented programming paradigmatic use in which one matches against nested data/objects and pulls out desired bits (cf Scala).
Consider this Raku code:
class body { has ( $.head, #.arms, #.legs ) } # Declare a class (object structure).
class person { has ( $.mom, $.body, $.age ) } # And another that includes first.
multi person's-age-and-legs # Declare a function that matches ...
( person # ... a person ...
( :$age where * > 40, # ... whose age is over 40 ...
:$body ( :#legs, *% ), # ... noting their body's legs ...
*% ) ) # ... and ignoring other attributes.
{ say "$age {+#legs}" } # Display age and number of legs.
my $age = 42; # Let's demo handy :$var syntax below.
person's-age-and-legs # Call function declared above ...
person # ... passing a person.
.new: # Explicitly construct ...
:$age, # ... a middle aged ...
body => body.new:
:head,
:2arms,
legs => <left middle right> # ... three legged person.
# Displays "42 3"
Notice where there's a close equivalent to a Scala pattern matching guard clause in the above -- where * > 40. (This can be nicely bundled up into a subset type.)
We could define other multis that correspond to different cases, perhaps pulling out the "names" of the person's legs ('left', 'middle', etc.) if their mom's name matches a particular regex or whatever -- you hopefully get the picture.
A default case (multi) that doesn't bother to deconstruct the person could be:
multi person's-age-and-legs (|otherwise)
{ say "let's not deconstruct this person" }
(In the above we've prefixed a parameter in a signature with | to slurp up all remaining structure/arguments passed to a multi. Given that we do nothing with that slurped structure/data, we could have written just (|).)
Unfortunately, I don't think signature deconstruction is mentioned in the official docs. Someone could write a book about Raku signatures. (Literally. Which of course is a great way -- the only way, even -- to write stuff. My favorite article that unpacks a bit of the power of Raku signatures is Pattern Matching and Unpacking from 2013 by Moritz. Who has authored Raku books. Here's hoping.)
Scala's match/case and Raku's given/when seem simpler
Indeed.
As #jjmerelo points out in the comments, using signatures means there's a multi foo (...) { ...} for each and every case, which is much heavier syntactically than case ... => ....
In mitigation:
Simpler cases can just use given/when, just like you wrote in the body of your question;
Raku will presumably one day get non-experimental macros that can be used to implement a construct that looks much closer to Scala's match/case construct, eliding the repeated multi foo (...)s.
From what I see in this answer, that's not really an implementation of a guard pattern in the same sense Haskell has them. However, Perl 6 does have guards in the same sense Scala has: using default patterns combined with ifs.
The Haskell to Perl 6 guide does have a section on guards. It hints at the use of where as guards; so that might answer your question.
TL;DR You've encountered what I'd call a WTF?!?: when Type and ... fails to check the and clause. This answer talks about what's wrong with the when and how to fix it. I've written another answer that focuses on using where with a signature.
If you want to stick with when, I suggest this:
when (condition when Type) { ... } # General form
when (* > 10 when Int) { ... } # For your specific example
This is (imo) unsatisfactory, but it does first check the Type as a guard, and then the condition if the guard passes, and works as expected.
"Is this right?"
No.
given $ch {
when Int and * > 10 { say 65}
}
This code says 65 for any given integer, not just one over 10!
WTF?!? Imo we should mention this on Raku's trap page.
We should also consider filing an issue to make Rakudo warn or fail to compile if a when construct starts with a compile-time constant value that's a type object, and continues with and (or &&, andthen, etc), which . It could either fail at compile-time or display a warning.
Here's the best option I've been able to come up with:
when (* > 10 when Int) { say 65 }
This takes advantage of the statement modifier (aka postfix) form of when inside the parens. The Int is checked before the * > 10.
This was inspired by Brad++'s new answer which looks nice if you're writing multiple conditions against a single guard clause.
I think my variant is nicer than the other options I've come up with in previous versions of this answer, but still unsatisfactory inasmuch as I don't like the Int coming after the condition.
Ultimately, especially if/when RakuAST lands, I think we will experiment with new pattern matching forms. Hopefully we'll come up with something nice that provides a nice elimination of this wart.
Really? What's going on?
We can begin to see the underlying problem with this code:
.say for ('TrueA' and 'TrueB'),
('TrueB' and 'TrueA'),
(Int and 42),
(42 and Int)
displays:
TrueB
TrueA
(Int)
(Int)
The and construct boolean evaluates its left hand argument. If that evaluates to False, it returns it, otherwise it returns its right hand argument.
In the first line, 'TrueA' boolean evaluates to True so the first line returns the right hand argument 'TrueB'.
In the second line 'TrueB' evaluates to True so the and returns its right hand argument, in this case 'TrueA'.
But what happens in the third line? Well, Int is a type object. Type objects boolean evaluate to False! So the and duly returns its left hand argument which is Int (which the .say then displays as (Int)).
This is the root of the problem.
(To continue to the bitter end, the compiler evaluates the expression Int and * > 10; immediately returns the left hand side argument to and which is Int; then successfully matches that Int against whatever integer is given -- completely ignoring the code that looks like a guard clause (the and ... bit).)
If you were using such an expression as the condition of, say, an if statement, the Int would boolean evaluate to False and you'd get a false negative. Here you're using a when which uses .ACCEPTS which leads to a false positive (it is an integer but it's any integer, disregarding the supposed guard clause). This problem quite plausibly belongs on the traps page.
Years ago I wrote a comment mentioning that you had to be more explicit about matching against $_ like this:
my $ch = 23;
given $ch {
when $_ ~~ Int and $_ > 10 { say 65}
when '+' { say 1 }
when '-' { say -1 }
default { say 0 }
}
After coming back to this question, I realized there was another way.
when can safely be inside of another when construct.
my $ch = 23;
given $ch {
when Int:D {
when $_ > 10 { say 65}
proceed
}
when '+' { say 1 }
when '-' { say -1 }
default { say 0 }
}
Note that the inner when will succeed out of the outer one, which will succeed out of the given block.
If the inner when doesn't match we want to proceed on to the outer when checks and default, so we call proceed.
This means that we can also group multiple when statements inside of the Int case, saving having to do repeated type checks. It also means that those inner when checks don't happen at all if we aren't testing an Int value.
when Int:D {
when $_ < 10 { say 5 }
when 10 { say 10}
when $_ > 10 { say 65}
}
I am currently programming in BCPL for an OS course and wanted to write a simple is_digit() function for validation in a program of mine.
A code snippet of my current code follows:
let is_digit(n) be {
if ((n >= '0') /\ (n <= '9')) then
resultis true;
}
I am aware that BCPL has no notion of types, but how would I be able to accomplish this sort of thing in the language?
Passing in a number yields a false result instead of the expected true.
is_digit() is a function returning a value, rather than a routine, so should use = VALOF rather than BE. Otherwise, the code is OK.
let is_digit(n) = valof {
.....
resultis true
}
Functions that return values should be using valof rather than be, the latter (a routine rather than a function) can be called as a function but the return value you get back from it will be undefined(a).
In addition, you should ensure you return a valid value for every code path. At the moment, a non-digit will not execute a RESULTIS statement, and I'm not entirely certain what happens in that case (so best to be safe).
That means something like this is what you're after, keeping in mind there can be implementation variations, such as & and /\ for and, or {...} and $(...$) for the block delimiters - I've used the ones documented in Martin's latest manual:
LET is_digit(n) = VALOF {
RESULTIS (n >= '0') & (n <= '9')
}
(a) Since Martin Richards is still doing stuff with BCPL, this manual may help in any future questions (or see his home page for a large selection of goodies).
I've been told to avoid use of return in Scala, although I'm not sure why.
I've got the following code, and it doesn't seem to return the proper thing unless I put the return keyword in there. Why do I need to put return?
def nextParen(chars: List[Char]): List[Char] =
for(i <- 0 to chars.size - 1) {
if(chars(i) == '(' || chars(i) == ')') {
return chars.slice(i, chars.size) // return HERE!
}
}
List.empty
}
The argument for avoiding return is that it leads to code that is less readable, and not refactor-safe. It's not an absolute rule, if you find an algorithm that's best expressed that way, but usually code can be made clearer by writing it as an expression.
This particular code looks to be equivalent to:
def nextParen(chars: List[Char]) =
chars.dropWhile{c => c != '(' && c != ')'}
In general, try to focus on writing expressions rather than procedures; rather than telling the compiler what steps it should take, tell it what the value is. Even if you didn't know about dropWhile, you could write the loop as a fold (e.g. foldLeft) that says what to do at each element of the list, and then the case where the list is empty at the end would fall out naturally, rather than needing two different branches for where there is a match and where there isn't.
There's nothing wrong with using return when it clearly expresses your intent in a good algorithm. However, you should be cautious about using it because it isn't necessary, and most things you want to do already have decent implementations in the collections library.
So, for example, your code works but is O(n^2) in the size of the list because you're indexing into a linear data structure. It's much better to use
chars.dropWhile(c => c != '(' && c != ')')
or if you don't know about that, any of a huge number of alternatives:
val i = chars.indexWhere(c => c == '(' || c == ')')
if (i < 0) chars take 0 else chars drop i
var found = false
chars.filter(c => found || { found = (c == '(' || c == ')'); found })
You can probably come up with half a dozen more without trying too hard. (Fold with an indicator, for/yield with an if clause, span, etc.)
So the best reason to not use return is that you should know your library. Usually you don't need it; it's better to use a stock method that computes what you want.
You are using a for in the imperative sense above. You don't have to use a return if you use it in a more functional sense i.e., as a for-yield or fold or takeWhile.
I think one of the biggest thing to wrap your head around when you move from imperative to functional (side-effect free) is the notion that you can express your code a sequence of expressions, each of which evaluates to a value. For example, a for-yield expression evaluates to a value. So in an imperative world you are executing a sequence of statements that is changing the state (data structures, console etc) around you.
PS: I've used a lot of terms (e.g., side-effect, for-yield, value) that may sound unfamiliar to a new Scala programmer. But with more experience they will make more sense. I would highly recommend this book - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
I had programming interview which consisted of 3 interviewers, 45 min each.
While first two interviewers gave me 2-3 short coding questions (i.e reverse linked list, implement rand(7) using rand(5) etc ) third interviewer used whole timeslot for single question:
You are given string representing correctly formed and parenthesized
boolean expression consisting of characters T, F, &, |, !, (, ) an
spaces. T stands for True, F for False, & for logical AND, | for
logical OR, ! for negate. & has greater priority than |. Any of these
chars is followed by a space in input string. I was to evaluate value
of expression and print it (output should be T or F). Example: Input:
! ( T | F & F ) Output: F
I tried to implement variation of Shunting Yard algorithm to solve the problem (to turn input in postfix form, and then to evaluate postfix expression), but failed to code it properly in given timeframe, so I ended up explaining in pseudocode and words what I wanted.
My recruiter said that first two interviewers gave me "HIRE", while third interviewer gave me "NO HIRE", and since the final decision is "logical AND", he thanked me for my time.
My questions:
Do you think that this question is appropriate to code on whiteboard in approx. 40 mins? To me it seems to much code for such a short timeslot and dimensions of whiteboard.
Is there shorter approach than to use Shunting yard algorithm for this problem?
Well, once you have some experience with parsers postfix algorithm is quite simple.
1. From left to right evaluate for each char:
if its operand, push on the stack.
if its operator, pop A, then pop B then push B operand A onto the stack. Last item on the stack will be the result. If there's none or more than one means you're doing it wrong (assuming the postfix notation is valid).
Infix to postfix is quite simple as well. That being said I don't think it's an appropriate task for 40 minutes if You don't know the algorithms. Here is a boolean postfix evaluation method I wrote at some stage (uses Lambda as well):
public static boolean evaluateBool(String s)
{
Stack<Object> stack = new Stack<>();
StringBuilder expression =new StringBuilder(s);
expression.chars().forEach(ch->
{
if(ch=='0') stack.push(false);
else if(ch=='1') stack.push(true);
else if(ch=='A'||ch=='R'||ch=='X')
{
boolean op1 = (boolean) stack.pop();
boolean op2 = (boolean) stack.pop();
switch(ch)
{
case 'A' : stack.push(op2&&op1); break;
case 'R' : stack.push(op2||op1); break;
case 'X' : stack.push(op2^op1); break;
}//endSwitch
}else
if(ch=='N')
{
boolean op1 = (boolean) stack.pop();
stack.push(!op1);
}//endIF
});
return (boolean) stack.pop();
}
In your case to make it working (with that snippet) you would first have to parse the expression and replace special characters like "!","|","^" etc with something plain like letters or just use integer char value in your if cases.
On compiling the following code with Scala 2.7.3,
package spoj
object Prime1 {
def main(args: Array[String]) {
def isPrime(n: Int) = (n != 1) && (2 to n/2 forall (n % _ != 0))
val read = new java.util.Scanner(System.in)
var nTests = read nextInt // [*]
while(nTests > 0) {
val (start, end) = (read nextInt, read nextInt)
start to end filter(isPrime(_)) foreach println
println
nTests -= 1
}
}
}
I get the following compile time error :
PRIME1.scala:8: error: illegal start of simple expression
while(nTests > 0) {
^
PRIME1.scala:14: error: block must end in result expression, not in definition
}
^
two errors found
When I add a semicolon at the end of the line commented as [*], the program compiles fine. Can anyone please explain why does Scala's semicolon inference fail to work on that particular line?
Is it because scala is assuming that you are using the syntax a foo b (equivalent to a.foo(b)) in your call to readInt. That is, it assumes that the while loop is the argument to readInt (recall that every expression has a type) and hence the last statement is a declaration:
var ntests = read nextInt x
wherex is your while block.
I must say that, as a point of preference, I've now returned to using the usual a.foo(b) syntax over a foo b unless specifically working with a DSL which was designed with that use in mind (like actors' a ! b). It makes things much clearer in general and you don't get bitten by weird stuff like this!
Additional comment to the answer by oxbow_lakes...
var ntests = read nextInt()
Should fix things for you as an alternative to the semicolon
To add a little more about the semicolon inference, Scala actually does this in two stages. First it infers a special token called nl by the language spec. The parser allows nl to be used as a statement separator, as well as semicolons. However, nl is also permitted in a few other places by the grammar. In particular, a single nl is allowed after infix operators when the first token on the next line can start an expression -- and while can start an expression, which is why it interprets it that way. Unfortunately, although while can start a expression, a while statement cannot be used in an infix expression, hence the error. Personally, it seems a rather quirky way for the parser to work, but there's quite plausibly a sane rationale behind it for all I know!
As yet another option to the others suggested, putting a blank newline between your [*] line and the while line will also fix the problem, because only a single nl is permitted after infix operators, so multiple nls forces a different interpretation by the parser.