I am new to Elixir language and I am having some issues while writing a piece of code.
What I am given is a 2D array like
list1 = [
[1 ,2,3,4,"nil"],
[6,7,8,9,10,],
[11,"nil",13,"nil",15],
[16,17,"nil",19,20] ]
Now, what I've to do is to get all the elements that have values between 10 and 20, so what I'm doing is:
final_list = []
Enum.each(list1, fn row ->
Enum.each(row, &(if (&1 >= 10 and &1 <= 99) do final_list = final_list ++ &1 end))
end
)
Doing this, I'm expecting that I'll get my list of numbers in final_list but I'm getting blank final list with a warning like:
warning: variable "final_list" is unused (there is a variable with the same name in the context, use the pin operator (^) to match on it or prefix this variable with underscore if it is not meant to be used)
iex:5
:ok
and upon printing final_list, it is not updated.
When I try to check whether my code is working properly or not, using IO.puts as:
iex(5)> Enum.each(list1, fn row -> ...(5)> Enum.each(row, &(if (&1 >= 10 and &1 <= 99) do IO.puts(final_list ++ &1) end))
...(5)> end
...(5)> )
The Output is:
10
11
13
15
16
17
19
20
:ok
What could I possibly be doing wrong here? Shouldn't it add the elements to the final_list?
If this is wrong ( probably it is), what should be the possible solution to this?
Any kind of help will be appreciated.
As mentioned in Adam's comments, this is a FAQ and the important thing is the message "warning: variable "final_list" is unused (there is a variable with the same name in the context, use the pin operator (^) to match on it or prefix this variable with underscore if it is not meant to be used)" This message actually indicates a very serious problem.
It tells you that the assignment "final_list = final_list ++ &1" is useless since it just creates a local variable, hiding the external one. Elixir variables are not mutable so you need to reorganize seriously your code.
The simplest way is
final_list =
for sublist <- list1,
n <- sublist,
is_number(n),
n in 10..20,
do: n
Note that every time you write final_list = ..., you actually declare a new variable with the same name, so the final_list you declared inside your anonymous function is not the final_list outside the anonymous function.
Related
I'm studying Standard ML and one of the exercices I have to do is to write a function called opPairs that receives a list of tuples of type int, and returns a list with the sum of each pair.
Example:
input: opPairs [(1, 2), (3, 4)]
output: val it = [3, 7]
These were my attempts, which are not compiling:
ATTEMPT 1
type T0 = int * int;
fun opPairs ((h:TO)::t) = let val aux =(#1 h + #2 h) in
aux::(opPairs(t))
end;
The error message is:
Error: unbound type constructor: TO
Error: operator and operand don't agree [type mismatch]
operator domain: {1:'Y; 'Z}
operand: [E]
in expression:
(fn {1=1,...} => 1) h
ATTEMPT 2
fun opPairs2 l = map (fn x => #1 x + #2 x ) l;
The error message is: Error: unresolved flex record (need to know the names of ALL the fields
in this context)
type: {1:[+ ty], 2:[+ ty]; 'Z}
The first attempt has a typo: type T0 is defined, where 0 is zero, but then type TO is referenced in the pattern, where O is the letter O. This gets rid of the "operand and operator do not agree" error, but there is a further problem. The pattern ((h:T0)::t) does not match an empty list, so there is a "match nonexhaustive" warning with the corrected type identifier. This manifests as an exception when the function is used, because the code needs to match an empty list when it reaches the end of the input.
The second attempt needs to use a type for the tuples. This is because the tuple accessor #n needs to know the type of the tuple it accesses. To fix this problem, provide the type of the tuple argument to the anonymous function:
fun opPairs2 l = map (fn x:T0 => #1 x + #2 x) l;
But, really it is bad practice to use #1, #2, etc. to access tuple fields; use pattern matching instead. Here is a cleaner approach, more like the first attempt, but taking full advantage of pattern matching:
fun opPairs nil = nil
| opPairs ((a, b)::cs) = (a + b)::(opPairs cs);
Here, opPairs returns an empty list when the input is an empty list, otherwise pattern matching provides the field values a and b to be added and consed recursively onto the output. When the last tuple is reached, cs is the empty list, and opPairs cs is then also the empty list: the individual tuple sums are then consed onto this empty list to create the output list.
To extend on exnihilo's answer, once you have achieved familiarity with the type of solution that uses explicit recursion and pattern matching (opPairs ((a, b)::cs) = ...), you can begin to generalise the solution using list combinators:
val opPairs = map op+
I have created a function in SML that traverses the starting elements of a list and if first,second,third.. element are the same deletes these elements and updates a variable's value.What i have written:
let
val min=7
in
fun seen2 (set:int list) =
if hd set=hd(tl set) then
min=min-1
seen2(tl set)
else
tl set
end
The output of this function is meant to be a list with the elements i mentioned deleted.For example if it gets this list as input->[1,1,1,1,2,3,4] and min is set as 7 from before i excpect it to give [2,3,4] as a result and min to updated to 4.The min variable should be stored because this function will probably be called again and min may get further updated.This code gives me syntax errors.At the end the final min must be printed so i think this has to be something liek a global value(?).How could i accomplish this?
traverses the starting elements of a list and if first,second,third.. element are the same deletes these elements
If by "first,second,third.." you mean arbitrarily many, then this is what you want to be doing:
fun removeDuplicatesBeginning [] = []
| removeDuplicatesBeginning (x::y::zs) =
if (* are the first two elements the same? *)
then (* apply removeDuplicatesBeginning recursively
to sub-list with one of them removed *)
else (* no repeats, we're done recursing, only remove first element *)
Express your desired behavior using tests, e.g.
val test_1 = removeDuplicatesBeginning [1,1,1,1,2,3,4] = [2,3,4]
And don't forget corner cases, e.g.
val test_2 = removeDuplicatesBeginning [2,3,4] = [3,4]
val test_3 = removeDuplicatesBeginning [1,2,1] = [2,1]
Avoid...
setting elements at the beginning, like let val min = 7 in ... end. There's no point.
You can't write let ... in fun ... end, because fun ... is a declaration, and you can only have expressions between in and end for let. (The other thing is possible with local ... in ... end, but you still don't want to do this. There's no point.)
using hd and tl. Use pattern matching on the input list's elements (x::xs, or x::y::zs).
I'm writing a genetic program in order to test the fitness of randomly generated expressions. Shown here is the function to generate the expression as well a the main function. DIV and GT are defined elsewhere in the code:
function create_single_full_tree(depth, fs, ts)
"""
Creates a single AST with full depth
Inputs
depth Current depth of tree. Initially called from main() with max depth
fs Function Set - Array of allowed functions
ts Terminal Set - Array of allowed terminal values
Output
Full AST of typeof()==Expr
"""
# If we are at the bottom
if depth == 1
# End of tree, return function with two terminal nodes
return Expr(:call, fs[rand(1:length(fs))], ts[rand(1:length(ts))], ts[rand(1:length(ts))])
else
# Not end of expression, recurively go back through and create functions for each new node
return Expr(:call, fs[rand(1:length(fs))], create_single_full_tree(depth-1, fs, ts), create_single_full_tree(depth-1, fs, ts))
end
end
function main()
"""
Main function
"""
# Define functional and terminal sets
fs = [:+, :-, :DIV, :GT]
ts = [:x, :v, -1]
# Create the tree
ast = create_single_full_tree(4, fs, ts)
#println(typeof(ast))
#println(ast)
#println(dump(ast))
x = 1
v = 1
eval(ast) # Error out unless x and v are globals
end
main()
I am generating a random expression based on certain allowed functions and variables. As seen in the code, the expression can only have symbols x and v, as well as the value -1. I will need to test the expression with a variety of x and v values; here I am just using x=1 and v=1 to test the code.
The expression is being returned correctly, however, eval() can only be used with global variables, so it will error out when run unless I declare x and v to be global (ERROR: LoadError: UndefVarError: x not defined). I would like to avoid globals if possible. Is there a better way to generate and evaluate these generated expressions with locally defined variables?
Here is an example for generating an (anonymous) function. The result of eval can be called as a function and your variable can be passed as parameters:
myfun = eval(Expr(:->,:x, Expr(:block, Expr(:call,:*,3,:x) )))
myfun(14)
# returns 42
The dump function is very useful to inspect the expression that the parsers has created. For two input arguments you would use a tuple for example as args[1]:
julia> dump(parse("(x,y) -> 3x + y"))
Expr
head: Symbol ->
args: Array{Any}((2,))
1: Expr
head: Symbol tuple
args: Array{Any}((2,))
1: Symbol x
2: Symbol y
typ: Any
2: Expr
[...]
Does this help?
In the Metaprogramming part of the Julia documentation, there is a sentence under the eval() and effects section which says
Every module has its own eval() function that evaluates expressions in its global scope.
Similarly, the REPL help ?eval will give you, on Julia 0.6.2, the following help:
Evaluate an expression in the given module and return the result. Every Module (except those defined with baremodule) has its own 1-argument definition of eval, which evaluates expressions in that module.
I assume, you are working in the Main module in your example. That's why you need to have the globals defined there. For your problem, you can use macros and interpolate the values of x and y directly inside the macro.
A minimal working example would be:
macro eval_line(a, b, x)
isa(a, Real) || (warn("$a is not a real number."); return :(throw(DomainError())))
isa(b, Real) || (warn("$b is not a real number."); return :(throw(DomainError())))
return :($a * $x + $b) # interpolate the variables
end
Here, #eval_line macro does the following:
Main> #macroexpand #eval_line(5, 6, 2)
:(5 * 2 + 6)
As you can see, the values of macro's arguments are interpolated inside the macro and the expression is given to the user accordingly. When the user does not behave,
Main> #macroexpand #eval_line([1,2,3], 7, 8)
WARNING: [1, 2, 3] is not a real number.
:((Main.throw)((Main.DomainError)()))
a user-friendly warning message is provided to the user at parse-time, and a DomainError is thrown at run-time.
Of course, you can do these things within your functions, again by interpolating the variables --- you do not need to use macros. However, what you would like to achieve in the end is to combine eval with the output of a function that returns Expr. This is what the macro functionality is for. Finally, you would simply call your macros with an # sign preceding the macro name:
Main> #eval_line(5, 6, 2)
16
Main> #eval_line([1,2,3], 7, 8)
WARNING: [1, 2, 3] is not a real number.
ERROR: DomainError:
Stacktrace:
[1] eval(::Module, ::Any) at ./boot.jl:235
EDIT 1. You can take this one step further, and create functions accordingly:
macro define_lines(linedefs)
for (name, a, b) in eval(linedefs)
ex = quote
function $(Symbol(name))(x) # interpolate name
return $a * x + $b # interpolate a and b here
end
end
eval(ex) # evaluate the function definition expression in the module
end
end
Then, you can call this macro to create different line definitions in the form of functions to be called later on:
#define_lines([
("identity_line", 1, 0);
("null_line", 0, 0);
("unit_shift", 0, 1)
])
identity_line(5) # returns 5
null_line(5) # returns 0
unit_shift(5) # returns 1
EDIT 2. You can, I guess, achieve what you would like to achieve by using a macro similar to that below:
macro random_oper(depth, fs, ts)
operations = eval(fs)
oper = operations[rand(1:length(operations))]
terminals = eval(ts)
ts = terminals[rand(1:length(terminals), 2)]
ex = :($oper($ts...))
for d in 2:depth
oper = operations[rand(1:length(operations))]
t = terminals[rand(1:length(terminals))]
ex = :($oper($ex, $t))
end
return ex
end
which will give the following, for instance:
Main> #macroexpand #random_oper(1, [+, -, /], [1,2,3])
:((-)([3, 3]...))
Main> #macroexpand #random_oper(2, [+, -, /], [1,2,3])
:((+)((-)([2, 3]...), 3))
Thanks Arda for the thorough response! This helped, but part of me thinks there may be a better way to do this as it seems too roundabout. Since I am writing a genetic program, I will need to create 500 of these ASTs, all with random functions and terminals from a set of allowed functions and terminals (fs and ts in the code). I will also need to test each function with 20 different values of x and v.
In order to accomplish this with the information you have given, I have come up with the following macro:
macro create_function(defs)
for name in eval(defs)
ex = quote
function $(Symbol(name))(x,v)
fs = [:+, :-, :DIV, :GT]
ts = [x,v,-1]
return create_single_full_tree(4, fs, ts)
end
end
eval(ex)
end
end
I can then supply a list of 500 random function names in my main() function, such as ["func1, func2, func3,.....". Which I can eval with any x and v values in my main function. This has solved my issue, however, this seems to be a very roundabout way of doing this, and may make it difficult to evolve each AST with each iteration.
How does one get the first key,value pair from F# Map without knowing the key?
I know that the Map type is used to get a corresponding value given a key, e.g. find.
I also know that one can convert the map to a list and use List.Head, e.g.
List.head (Map.toList map)
I would like to do this
1. without a key
2. without knowing the types of the key and value
3. without using a mutable
4. without iterating through the entire map
5. without doing a conversion that iterates through the entire map behind the seen, e.g. Map.toList, etc.
I am also aware that if one gets the first key,value pair it might not be of use because the map documentation does not note if using map in two different calls guarantees the same order.
If the code can not be written then an existing reference from a site such as MSDN explaining and showing why not would be accepted.
TLDR;
How I arrived at this problem was converting this function:
let findmin l =
List.foldBack
(fun (_,pr1 as p1) (_,pr2 as p2) -> if pr1 <= pr2 then p1 else p2)
(List.tail l) (List.head l)
which is based on list and is used to find the minimum value in the associative list of string * int.
An example list:
["+",10; "-",10; "*",20; "/",20]
The list is used for parsing binary operator expressions that have precedence where the string is the binary operator and the int is the precedence. Other functions are preformed on the data such that using F# map might be an advantage over list. I have not decided on a final solution but wanted to explore this problem with map while it was still in the forefront.
Currently I am using:
let findmin m =
if Map.isEmpty m then
None
else
let result =
Map.foldBack
(fun key value (k,v) ->
if value <= v then (key,value)
else (k,v))
m ("",1000)
Some(result)
but here I had to hard code in the initial state ("",1000) when what would be better is just using the first value in the map as the initial state and then passing the remainder of the map as the starting map as was done with the list:
(List.tail l) (List.head l)
Yes this is partitioning the map but that did not work e.g.,
let infixes = ["+",10; "-",10; "*",20; "/",20]
let infixMap = infixes |> Map.ofList
let mutable test = true
let fx k v : bool =
if test then
printfn "first"
test <- false
true
else
printfn "rest"
false
let (first,rest) = Map.partition fx infixMap
which results in
val rest : Map<string,int> = map [("*", 20); ("+", 10); ("-", 10)]
val first : Map<string,int> = map [("/", 20)]
which are two maps and not a key,value pair for first
("/",20)
Notes about answers
For practical purposes with regards to the precedence parsing seeing the + operations before - in the final transformation is preferable so returning + before - is desirable. Thus this variation of the answer by marklam
let findmin (map : Map<_,_>) = map |> Seq.minBy (fun kvp -> kvp.Value)
achieves this and does this variation by Tomas
let findmin m =
Map.foldBack (fun k2 v2 st ->
match st with
| Some(k1, v1) when v1 < v2 -> st
| _ -> Some(k2, v2)) m None
The use of Seq.head does return the first item in the map but one must be aware that the map is constructed with the keys sorted so while for my practical example I would like to start with the lowest value being 10 and since the items are sorted by key the first one returned is ("*",20) with * being the first key because the keys are strings and sorted by such.
For me to practically use the answer by marklam I had to check for an empty list before calling and massage the output from a KeyValuePair into a tuple using let (a,b) = kvp.Key,kvp.Value
I don't think there is an answer that fully satisfies all your requirements, but:
You can just access the first key-value pair using m |> Seq.head. This is lazy unlike converting the map to list. This does not guarantee that you always get the same first element, but realistically, the implementation will guarantee that (it might change in the next version though).
For finding the minimum, you do not actually need the guarantee that Seq.head returns the same element always. It just needs to give you some element.
You can use other Seq-based functons as #marklam mentioned in his answer.
You can also use fold with state of type option<'K * 'V>, which you can initialize with None and then you do not have to worry about finding the first element:
m |> Map.fold (fun st k2 v2 ->
match st with
| Some(k1, v1) when v1 < v2 -> st
| _ -> Some(k2, v2)) None
Map implements IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<_,_>> so you can treat it as a Seq, like:
let findmin (map : Map<_,_>) = map |> Seq.minBy (fun kvp -> kvp.Key)
It's even simpler than the other answers. Map internally uses an AVL balanced tree so the entries are already ordered by key. As mentioned by #marklam Map implements IEnumerable<KeyValuePair<_,_>> so:
let m = Map.empty.Add("Y", 2).Add("X", 1)
let (key, value) = m |> Seq.head
// will return ("X", 1)
It doesn't matter what order the elements were added to the map, Seq.head can operate on the map directly and return the key/value mapping for the min key.
Sometimes it's required to explicitly convert Map to Seq:
let m = Map.empty.Add("Y", 2).Add("X", 1)
let (key, value) = m |> Map.toSeq |> Seq.head
The error message I've seen for this case says "the type 'a * 'b does not match the type Collections.Generic.KeyValuePair<string, int>". It may also be possible add type annotations rather than Map.toSeq.
I wrote the following code:
using JuMP
m = Model()
const A =
[ :a0 ,
:a1 ,
:a2 ]
const T = [1:5]
const U =
[
:a0 => [9 9 9 9 999],
:a1 => [11 11 11 11 11],
:a2 => [1 1 1 1 1]
]
#defVar(m, x[A,T], Bin)
#setObjective(m, Max, sum{sum{x[i,j] * U[i,j], i=A}, j=T} )
print(m)
status = solve(m)
println("Objective value: ", getObjectiveValue(m))
println("x = ", getValue(x))
When I run it I get the following error
ERROR: `*` has no method matching *(::Variable)
in anonymous at /home/username/.julia/v0.3/JuMP/src/macros.jl:71
in include at ./boot.jl:245
in include_from_node1 at loading.jl:128
in process_options at ./client.jl:285
in _start at ./client.jl:354
while loading /programs/julia-0.2.1/models/a003.jl, in expression starting on line 21
What's the correct way of doing this?
As the manual says:
There is one key restriction on the form of the expression in the second case: if there is a product between coefficients and variables, the variables must appear last. That is, Coefficient times Variable is good, but Variable times Coefficient is bad
Let me know if there is another place I could put this that would have helped you out.
This situation isn't desirable but unfortunately we haven't got a good solution yet that retains the fast model construction capabilities of JuMP.
I believe the problem with U is that it is a dictionary of arrays, thus you first need to index into the dictionary to return the correct array, then index into the array. JuMP's variables have more powerful indexing, so allow you to do it in one set of [].
I resolved my problem: constants must preceed variables as I read somewhere, moreover it seems that an array of constants must be used as an array of arrays while variables can be used as matrices.
Here's the correct line:
#setObjective(m, Max, sum{sum{U[i][j]*x[i,j], i=A}, j=T} )