Related
What is the best way to iterate through the fields of a composite (user-defined) type in Julia?
Let's say, I defined the following struct and created an instance:
struct Foo
bar
baz::Int
qux::Float64
end
foo = Foo("Hello, world.", 23, 1.5)
How can I iterate through all fields and for example print the fields and their values to the REPL? I have a type with several fields and I don't want to explicitly name every one. Thank you
fieldnames(typeof(foo)) gives you an Vector{Symbol} for the names, and foo. lowers to getfield(foo,...). So you just:
julia> for n in fieldnames(typeof(foo))
println(getfield(foo,n))
end
Hello, world.
23
1.5
this is obviously not good for performance since type inference cannot occur here (the type that you are getting the field from depends on the value n).
For only the values also
for k in 1:length(fieldnames(foo))
println(getfield(foo,k))
end
seems to work (Julia 5.1). Still no type inference, but avoiding the Symbol lookup.
to-array-2D is a handy function for converting a collection of collections into a 2D java array. Is there a function to go the other way?
I would like to get a vector of vectors from a 2D java array.
You could do:
(mapv vec the-array)
Although in that case, take into account the documentation of vec
clojure.core/vec
([coll])
Creates a new vector containing the contents of coll. Java arrays
will be aliased and should not be modified.
If you prefer to make a copy (less efficient but safer), do what leeor says in the comment. Shorter version:
(mapv #(into [] %) the-array)
How do you define non-commutable variables? I'm new to julia and have been reading the doc and found nothing so far.
By non-commutable I mean if variables (say symbols) a and b are multiplied. ab =\= ba
About commutativity: Julia does not assume that a*b is the same as b*a (example: let a and b be matrices). However, methods of the function *(a,b) for some specific combinations of types act in a commutative manner, such as when a and b are numbers.
Since you are talking about symbols, I guess that want to work with a symbolic representation of expressions. There's at least two ways to go about this:
Work with the AST of an expression.
You can quote any expression by :(expr) (sometimes :expr is enough, depends on operator precedence):
julia> ex = :(x*y*z)
:(x * y * z)
julia> typeof(ex)
Expr
Note that the order of the factors has been preserved (though the associativity has not).
You can inspect the Expr by looking at it's head and args fields:
julia> ex.head
:call
julia> ex.args
4-element Array{Any,1}:
:*
:x
:y
:z
The args may be e.g. symbols (of type Symbol), constant values, and other expressions.
This technique works well if you want to write your own macros that process expressions, since the input to a macro is the AST of its arguments.
Define your own types and overload the * function. Example: with
abstract Symbolic
# might as well make these immutable
immutable Sym <: Symbolic
name::Symbol
end
immutable Prod <: Symbolic
x::Symbolic
y::Symbolic
end
# The * function is imported by default.
# Usually, we need to import a function
# from Base before extending it.
*(x::Symbolic, y::Symbolic) = Prod(x, y)
you can do
julia> x, y = Sym(:x), Sym(:y)
(Sym(:x),Sym(:y))
julia> x*y
Prod(Sym(:x),Sym(:y))
Since our *(x::Symbolic, y::Symbolic) function preserves the order of the arguments, we can see it in the created Prod object.
In most languages, the second alternative is your only option. The first alternative is more direct since you don't have to write a new AST framework for yourself, and don't have to execute the expression just to get at it's representation. Which one is more suitable depends on the application, however. If you want to associate different properties with your variables, the second approach seems easier.
Was it something like this that you were looking for?
I am a Java programmer and am new to Clojure. From different places, I saw sequence and collection are used in different cases. However, I have no idea what the exact difference is between them.
For some examples:
1) In Clojure's documentation for Sequence:
The Seq interface
(first coll)
Returns the first item in the collection.
Calls seq on its argument. If coll is nil, returns nil.
(rest coll)
Returns a sequence of the items after the first. Calls seq on its argument.
If there are no more items, returns a logical sequence for which seq returns nil.
(cons item seq)
Returns a new seq where item is the first element and seq is the rest.
As you can see, when describing the Seq interface, the first two functions (first/rest) use coll which seems to indicate this is a collection while the cons function use seq which seems to indicate this is a sequence.
2) There are functions called coll? and seq? that can be used to test if a value is a collection or a sequence. It is clearly collection and sequence are different.
3) In Clojure's documentation about 'Collections', it is said:
Because collections support the seq function, all of the sequence
functions can be used with any collection
Does this mean all collections are sequences?
(coll? [1 2 3]) ; => true
(seq? [1 2 3]) ; => false
The code above tells me it is not such case because [1 2 3] is a collection but is not a sequence.
I think this is a pretty basic question for Clojure but I am not able to find a place explaining this clearly what their difference is and which one should I use in different cases. Any comment is appreciated.
Any object supporting the core first and rest functions is a sequence.
Many objects satisfy this interface and every Clojure collection provides at least one kind of seq object for walking through its contents using the seq function.
So:
user> (seq [1 2 3])
(1 2 3)
And you can create a sequence object from a map too
user> (seq {:a 1 :b 2})
([:a 1] [:b 2])
That's why you can use filter, map, for, etc. on maps sets and so on.
So you can treat many collection-like objects as sequences.
That's also why many sequence handling functions such as filter call seq on the input:
(defn filter
"Returns a lazy sequence of the items in coll for which
(pred item) returns true. pred must be free of side-effects."
{:added "1.0"
:static true}
([pred coll]
(lazy-seq
(when-let [s (seq coll)]
If you call (filter pred 5)
Don't know how to create ISeq from: java.lang.Long
RT.java:505 clojure.lang.RT.seqFrom
RT.java:486 clojure.lang.RT.seq
core.clj:133 clojure.core/seq
core.clj:2523 clojure.core/filter[fn]
You see that seq call is the is this object a sequence validation.
Most of this stuff is in Joy of Clojure chapter 5 if you want to go deeper.
Here are few points that will help understand the difference between collection and sequence.
"Collection" and "Sequence" are abstractions, not a property that can be determined from a given value.
Collections are bags of values.
Sequence is a data structure (subset of collection) that is expected to be accessed in a sequential (linear) manner.
The figure below best describes the relation between them:
You can read more about it here.
Every sequence is a collection, but not every collection is a sequence.
The seq function makes it possible to convert a collection into a sequence. E.g. for a map you get a list of its entries. That list of entries is different from the map itself, though.
In Clojure for the brave and true the author sums it up in a really understandable way:
The collection abstraction is closely related to the sequence
abstraction. All of Clojure's core data structures — vectors, maps,
lists and sets — take part in both abstractions.
The abstractions differ in that the sequence abstraction is "about"
operating on members individually while the collection abstraction is
"about" the data structure as a whole. For example, the collection
functions count, empty?, and every? aren't about any individual
element; they're about the whole.
I have just been through Chapter 5 - "Collection Types" of "The Joy of Clojure", which is a bit confusing (i.e. the next version of that book needs a review). In Chapter 5, on page 86, there is a table which I am not fully happy with:
So here's my take (fully updated after coming back to this after a month of reflection).
collection
It's a "thing", a collection of other things.
This is based on the function coll?.
The function coll? can be used to test for this.
Conversely, anything for which coll? returns true is a collection.
The coll? docstring says:
Returns true if x implements IPersistentCollection
Things that are collections as grouped into three separate classes. Things in different classes are never equal.
Maps Test using (map? foo)
Map (two actual implementations with slightly differing behaviours)
Sorted map. Note: (sequential? (sorted-map :a 1) ;=> false
Sets Test using (set? foo)
Set
Sorted set. Note: (sequential? (sorted-set :a :b)) ;=> false
Sequential collections Test using (sequential? foo)
List
Vector
Queue
Seq: (sequential? (seq [1 2 3])) ;=> true
Lazy-Seq: (sequential? (lazy-seq (seq [1 2 3]))) ;=> true
The Java interop stuff is outside of this:
(coll? (to-array [1 2 3])) ;=> false
(map? (doto (new java.util.HashMap) (.put "a" 1) (.put "b" 2))) ;=> false
sequential collection (a "chain")
It's a "thing", a collection holding other things according to a specific, stable ordering.
This is based on the function sequential?.
The function sequential? can be used to test for this.
Conversely, anything for which sequential? returns true is a sequential collection.
The sequential? docstring says:
Returns true if coll implements Sequential
Note: "sequential" is an adjective! In "The Joy of Clojure", the adjective is used as a noun and this is really, really, really confusing:
"Clojure classifies each collection data type into one of three
logical categories or partitions: sequentials, maps, and sets."
Instead of "sequential" one should use a "sequential thing" or a "sequential collection" (as used above). On the other hand, in mathematics the following words already exist: "chain", "totally ordered set", "simply ordered set", "linearly ordered set". "chain" sounds excellent but no-one uses that word. Shame!
"Joy of Clojure" also has this to say:
Beware type-based predicates!
Clojure includes a few predicates with names like the words just
defined. Although they’re not frequently used, it seems worth
mentioning that they may not mean exactly what the definitions here
might suggest. For example, every object for which sequential? returns
true is a sequential collection, but it returns false for some that
are also sequential [better: "that can be considered sequential
collections"]. This is because of implementation details that may be
improved in a future version of Clojure [and maybe this has already been
done?]
sequence (also "sequence abstraction")
This is more a concept than a thing: a series of values (thus ordered) which may or may not exist yet (i.e. a stream). If you say that a thing is a sequence, is that thing also necessarily a Clojure collection, even a sequential collection? I suppose so.
That sequential collection may have been completely computed and be completely available. Or it may be a "machine" to generate values on need (by computation - likely in a "pure" fashion - or by querying external "impure", "oracular" sources: keyboard, databases)
seq
This is a thing: something that can be processed by the functions
first, rest, next, cons (and possibly others?), i.e. something that obeys the protocol clojure.lang.ISeq (which is about the same concept as "providing an implementation for an interface" in Java), i.e. the system has registered function implementations for a pair (thing, function-name) [I sure hope I get this right...]
This is based on the function seq?.
The function seq? can be used to test for this
Conversely, a seq is anything for which seq? returns true.
Docstring for seq?:
Return true if x implements ISeq
Docstring for first:
Returns the first item in the collection. Calls seq on its argument.
If coll is nil, returns nil.
Docstring for rest:
Returns a possibly empty seq of the items after the first. Calls seq
on its argument.
Docstring for next:
Returns a seq of the items after the first. Calls seq on its argument.
If there are no more items, returns nil.
You call next on the seq to generate the next element and a new seq. Repeat until nil is obtained.
Joy of Clojure calls this a "simple API for navigating collections" and says "a seq is any object that implements the seq API" - which is correct if "the API" is the ensemble of the "thing" (of a certain type) and the functions which work on that thing. It depends on suitable shift in the concept of API.
A note on the special case of the empty seq:
(def empty-seq (rest (seq [:x])))
(type? empty-seq) ;=> clojure.lang.PersistentList$EmptyList
(nil? empty-seq) ;=> false ... empty seq is not nil
(some? empty-seq) ;=> true ("true if x is not nil, false otherwise.")
(first empty-seq) ;=> nil ... first of empty seq is nil ("does not exist"); beware confusing this with a nil in a nonempty list!
(next empty-seq) ;=> nil ... "next" of empty seq is nil
(rest empty-seq) ;=> () ... "rest" of empty seq is the empty seq
(type (rest empty-seq)) ;=> clojure.lang.PersistentList$EmptyList
(seq? (rest empty-seq)) ;=> true
(= (rest empty-seq) empty-seq) ;=> true
(count empty-seq) ;=> 0
(empty? empty-seq) ;=> true
Addenda
The function seq
If you apply the function seq to a thing for which that makes sense (generally a sequential collection), you get a seq representing/generating the members of that collection.
The docstring says:
Returns a seq on the collection. If the collection is empty, returns
nil. (seq nil) returns nil. seq also works on Strings, native Java
arrays (of reference types) and any objects that implement Iterable.
Note that seqs cache values, thus seq should not be used on any
Iterable whose iterator repeatedly returns the same mutable object.
After applying seq, you may get objects of various actual classes:
clojure.lang.Cons - try (class (seq (map #(* % 2) '( 1 2 3))))
clojure.lang.PersistentList
clojure.lang.APersistentMap$KeySeq
clojure.lang.PersistentList$EmptyList
clojure.lang.PersistentHashMap$NodeSeq
clojure.lang.PersistentQueue$Seq
clojure.lang.PersistentVector$ChunkedSeq
If you apply seq to a sequence, the actual class of the thing returned may be different from the actual class of the thing passed in. It will still be a sequence.
What the "elements" in the sequence are depends. For example, for maps, they are key-value pairs which look like 2-element vector (but their actual class is not really a vector).
The function lazy-seq
Creates a thing to generate more things lazily (a suspended machine, a suspended stream, a thunk)
The docstring says:
Takes a body of expressions that returns an ISeq or nil, and yields a
Seqable object that will invoke the body only the first time seq is
called, and will cache the result and return it on all subsequent seq
calls. See also - realized?"
A note on "functions" and "things" ... and "objects"
In the Clojure Universe, I like to talk about "functions" and "things", but not about "objects", which is a term heavily laden with Java-ness and other badness. Mention of objects feels like shards poking up from the underlying Java universe.
What is the difference between function and thing?
It's fluid! Some stuff is pure function, some stuff is pure thing, some is in between (can be used as function and has attributes of a thing)
In particular, Clojure allows contexts where one considers keywords (things) as functions (to look up values in maps) or where one interpretes maps (things) as functions, or shorthand for functions (which take a key and return the value associated to that key in the map)
Evidently, functions are things as they are "first-class citizens".
It's also contextual! In some contexts, a function becomes a thing, or a thing becomes a function.
There are nasty mentions of objects ... these are shards poking up from the underlying Java universe.
For presentation purposes, a diagram of Collections
For seq?:
Return true if x implements ISeq
For coll?:
Returns true if x implements IPersistentCollection
And I found ISeq interface extends from IPersistentCollection in Clojure source code, so as Rörd said, every sequences is a collection.
In terms of scope? Actual implementation in memory? The syntax? For eg, if (let a 1) Is 'a' a variable or a symbol?
Jörg's answer points in the right direction. Let me add a bit to it.
I'll talk about Lisps that are similar to Common Lisp.
Symbols as a data structure
A symbol is a real data structure in Lisp. You can create symbols, you can use symbols, you can store symbols, you can pass symbols around and symbols can be part of larger data structures, for example lists of symbols. A symbol has a name, can have a value and can have a function value.
So you can take a symbol and set its value.
(setf (symbol-value 'foo) 42)
Usually one would write (setq foo 42), or (set 'foo 42) or (setf foo 42).
Symbols in code denoting variables
But!
(defun foo (a)
(setq a 42))
or
(let ((a 10))
(setq a 42))
In both forms above in the source code there are symbols and a is written like a symbol and using the function READ to read that source returns a symbol a in some list. But the setq operation does NOT set the symbol value of a to 42. Here the LET and the DEFUN introduce a VARIABLE a that we write with a symbol. Thus the SETQ operation then sets the variable value to 42.
Lexical binding
So, if we look at:
(defvar foo nil)
(defun bar (baz)
(setq foo 3)
(setq baz 3))
We introduce a global variable FOO.
In bar the first SETQ sets the symbol value of the global variable FOO. The second SETQ sets the local variable BAZ to 3. In both case we use the same SETQ and we write the variable as a symbol, but in the first case the FOO donates a global variable and those store values in the symbol value. In the second case BAZ denotes a local variable and how the value gets stored, we don't know. All we can do is to access the variable to get its value. In Common Lisp there is no way to take a symbol BAZ and get the local variable value. We don't have access to the local variable bindings and their values using symbols. That's a part of how lexical binding of local variables work in Common Lisp.
This leads for example to the observation, that in compiled code with no debugging information recorded, the symbol BAZ is gone. It can be a register in your processor or implemented some other way. The symbol FOO is still there, because we use it as a global variable.
Various uses of symbols
A symbol is a data type, a data structure in Lisp.
A variable is a conceptual thing. Global variables are based on symbols. Local lexical variables not.
In source code we write all kinds of names for functions, classes and variables using symbols.
There is some conceptual overlap:
(defun foo (bar) (setq bar 'baz))
In the above SOURCE code, defun, foo, bar, setq and baz are all symbols.
DEFUN is a symbol providing a macro.
FOO is a symbol providing a function.
SETQ is a symbol providing a special operator.
BAZ is a symbol used as data. Thus the quote before BAZ.
BAR is a variable. In compiled code its symbol is no longer needed.
Quoting from the Common Lisp HyperSpec:
symbol n. an object of type symbol.
variable n. a binding in the “variable” namespace.
binding n. an association between a name and that which the name denotes. (…)
Explanation time.
What Lisp calls symbols is fairly close to what many languages call variables. In a first approximation, symbols have values; when you evaluate the expression x, the value of the expression is the value of the symbol x; when you write (setq x 3), you assign a new value to x. In Lisp terminology, (setq x 3) binds the value 3 to the symbol x.
A feature of Lisp that most languages don't have is that symbols are ordinary objects (symbols are first-class objects, in programming language terminology). When you write (setq x y), the value of x becomes whatever the value of y was at the time of the assignment. But you can write (setq x 'y), in which case the value of x is the symbol y.
Conceptually speaking, there is an environment which is an association table from symbols to values. Evaluating a symbol means looking it up in the current environment. (Environments are first-class objects too, but this is beyond the scope of this answer.) A binding refers to a particular entry in an environment. However, there's an additional complication.
Most Lisp dialects have multiple namespaces, at least a namespace of variables and a namespace of functions. An environment can in fact contain multiple entries for one symbol, one entry for each namespace. A variable, strictly speaking, is an entry in an environment in the namespace of variables. In everyday Lisp terminology, a symbol is often referred to as a variable when its binding as a variable is what you're interested in.
For example, in (setq a 1) or (let ((a 1)) ...), a is a symbol. But since the constructs act on the variable binding for the symbol a, it's common to refer to a as a variable in this context.
On the other hand, in (defun a (...) ...) or (flet ((a (x) ...)) ...), a is a also symbol, but these constructs act on its function binding, so a would not be considered a variable.
In most cases, when a symbol appears unquoted in an expression, it is evaluated by looking up its variable binding. The main exception is that in a function call (foo arg1 arg2 ...), the function binding for foo is used. The value of a quoted symbol 'x or (quote x) is itself, as with any quoted expression. Of course, there are plenty of special forms where you don't need to quote a symbol, including setq, let, flet, defun, etc.
A symbol is a name for a thing. A variable is a mutable pointer to a mutable storage location.
In the code snippet you showed, both let and a are symbols. Within the scope of the let block, the symbol a denotes a variable which is currently bound to the value 1.
But the name of the thing is not the thing itself. The symbol a is not a variable. It is a name for a variable. But only in this specific context. In a different context, the name a can refer to a completely different thing.
Example: the symbol jaguar may, depending on context, denote
OSX 10.2
a gaming console
a car manufacturer
a ground attack military jet airplane
another military jet airplane
a supercomputer
an electric guitar
and a whole lot of other things
oh, did I forget something?
Lisp uses environments which are similar to maps (key -> value) but with extra built-in mechanisms for chaining environments and controlling bindings.
Now, symbols are pretty much, keys (except special form symbols), and point to a value,
ie function, integer, list, etc.
Since Common Lisp gives you a way to alter the values, i.e. with setq, symbols in some contexts
(your example) are also variables.
A symbol is a Lisp data object. A Lisp "form" means a Lisp object that is intended to be evaluated. When a symbol itself is used as a Lisp form, i.e. when you evaluate a symbol, the result is a value that is associated with that symbol. The way values are associated with symbols is a deep part of the Lisp langauge. Whether the symbol has been declared to be "special" or not greatly changes the way evaluation works.
Lexical values are denoted by symbols, but you can't manipulate those symbols as objects yourself. In my opinion, explaining anything in Lisp in terms of "pointers" or "locations" is not the best way.
Adding a side note to the above answers:
Newcomers to Lisp often are not sure exactly what symbols are for, besides being the names of variables. I think the best answer is that they are like enumeration constants, except that you don't have to declare them before using them. Of course, as others have explained, they are also objects. (This shouldn't seem strange to users of Java, in which enumeration constants are objects too.)
Symbol and variable are 2 different things.
Like in mathematic symbol is a value. And variable have the same meaning than in mathematic.
But your confusion came from the fact that symbol are the meta representation of a variable.
That is if you do
(setq a 42)
You just define a variable a. Incidentally the way common lisp store it is throw the structure of a symbol.
In common lips symbol is a structure withe different property. Each one can be access with function like symbol-name, symbol-function...
In the case of variable you can access his value via ssymbol-value
? (symbol-value 'a)
42
This is not the common case of getting the value of a.
? a
42
Note that symbols are self evaluating that mean that if you ask a symbol you get the symbol not the symbol-value
? 'a
A