Let's say I'm invoking something like this
Enum.count(list)
And list is not defined in 'upper scope'. In most of languages you'll probably get something like Variable list is undefined, but in Elixir (it comes from Erlang, so I hope it's same behaviour) you'll be getting undefined function list/0 (there is no such import).
What's the difference in Elixir from other (let's say imperative) programming languages in sense of distinction between variable and function?
Also I've noticed you can make a function in module, and if it takes zero arguments, you can call it without parentheses, I was wondering what's special about that. (was answered below by #sabiwara)
Elixir used to consider parentheses optional for all function calls, including 0-arity functions like Kernel.node/0:
iex> node
:nonode#nohost
This behavior has since been deprecated and will emit a compile time warning:
warning: variable "node" does not exist and is being expanded to "node()", please use parentheses to remove the ambiguity or change the variable name
Parentheses for non-qualified calls are optional, except for zero-arity calls, which would then be ambiguous with variables.
But since it would be a breaking change to just change this behavior, it still works and gets interpreted, in your case, as list().
This might change in Elixir 2.0. A discussion on this topic here.
Related
In most languages with switch statements, switch is a special form designed such that the possibilities are evaluated lazily and the compiler knows how to optimise the selection of statements based on the given input. R, mostly already being lazy, does not need some of this. However, R's switch statement is still a function call, rather than any sort of special form. Does this mean that R's switch statement is slower than it would be if it were a special form? Or does R's interpreter know to optimise it as if it were a special form?
If you look at internal code of switch in file src/main/builtin.c, you can read in lines 1009-1025 :
This is a SPECIALSXP, so arguments need to be evaluated as needed.
SPECIALSXP means :
no SEXPTYPE Description
7 SPECIALSXP special functions
So switch is actually a special function which passes unevaluated arguments to the internal function.
Further reading the source code from line 1030 to line 1104 shows that as explained in ?switch, the function either handles character or number in a simple and not fully optimized way.
This probably explains why switch isn't particularly fast in situations which would for example require a binary search.
I know there is macro-function, explained here, which allows you to check, but is it also possible in simply reading lisp source to sometimes infer of what you're looking at "that must be a macro"? (assuming of course you have never seen the function/macro before).
I'm fairly sure the answer is yes, but as this seems so fundamental, I thought worth asking, especially because any nuances on this may be valuable & interesting to know about.
In Paul Graham's ANSI Common Lisp, p70, he is describing how to use defstruct.
When I see (defstruct point x y), were I to know absolutely nothing about what defstruct was, this could just as well be a function.
But when I see
(defstruct polemic
(subject "foo")
(effect "bar"))
I know that must be a macro because (let's assume), I also know that subject and effect are undefined functions. (I know that because they error with undefined function when called 'at the top level'(?)) (if that's the right term).
If the two list arguments to defstruct above were quoted, it would not be so simple. Because they're not quoted, it must be a macro.
Is it as simple as that?
I've changed the field names slightly from those used on the book to make this question clearer.
Finally, Graham writes:
"We can specify default values for structure fields by enclosing the field name and a default expression in a list in the original definition"
What I'm noticing is that that's true but it is not a (quoted) list. Would any readers of this post have phrased the above sentence at all differently (given that macros haven't been introduced in the book yet (though I have a basic awareness of what they are)).
My feeling is it's not a "data list" those default expressions are enclosed in. (apologies for bad terminology) - seeking how rightly to conceptualise here.
In general, you're right: if there's some nesting inside the call and you are sure that the car's of the nested lists aren't functions - it's a macro.
Also, almost always, def-something and with-something are macros.
But there's no guarantee. The question is, what are you trying to accomplish? Some code walking/transformation or external processing (like in an editor). For the latter, you should keep in mind that full control is possible only if you perform code evaluation, although heuristics (like in Emacs) can take you pretty far. Or you just want to develop your intuition for faster code reading...
There is a set of conventions that identify quite cleary what forms are supposed to be macros, simply by mimicking the syntax of existing macros or special operators of CL.
For example, the following is a mix of various imaginary macros, but even without knowing their definition, the code shouldn't be too hard to figure out:
(defun/typed example ((id (integer 0 10)))
(with-connection (connection (connect id))
(do-events (event connection)
(event-case event
(:quit (&optional code) (return code))))))
The usual advice about macros is to avoid them if possible, so if you spot something that doesn't make sense as a lisp expression, it probably is, or is enclosed in, a macro.
(defstruct point x y)
[...] were I to know absolutely nothing about what defstruct was, this could just as well be a function.
There are various hints that this is not a function. First of all, the name starts with def. Then, if defstruct was a function, then point, x and y would all be evaluated before calling the function, and that means the code would be relying on global variables, even though they are not wearing earmuffs (e.g. *point*, *x*, *y*), and you probably won't find any definition for them in the preceding forms (or later in the same compilation unit). Also, if it was a function, the result would be discarded directly since it is not used (this is a toplevel form). That only indicates the probable presence of side-effects, but still, this would be unusual.
A top-level function with side-effects would look like this instead, with quoted data:
(register-struct 'point '(x y))
Finally, there are cases where you cannot easily guess if you are using a macro or a function:
(my-get object :slot)
This could be a function call, or you could have a macro that turns the above to (aref object 0) (assuming :slot is the zeroth slot in object, because all your objects are assumed to be of a certain custom type backed by a vector). You could also have compiler macros. In case of doubt, try to macroexpand it and look at the documentation.
I'm currently programming on Julia via command line session.
I know that the predefined functions in Julia (e.g. sqrt) can take on a variable value but in a particular session I tried to use the function as sqrt(25) and it gave me 5.0 but in the same session when I wrote sqrt=9, then it says
"Error: cannot assign variable Base.sqrt from module Main"
and if I have to make this happen I have to open a new session all over again and assign a variable value to sqrt sqrt=9and when I do so then again it says
ERROR:MethodError: objects of type Int64 are not callable
when I try to use sqrt as a function.
The same thing happens with pi.
The topic you are asking about is a bit tricky. Although I agree with the general recommendation of PilouPili it is sometimes not that obvious.
Your question can be decomposed into two issues:
ERROR:MethodError: objects of type Int64 are not callable
This one is pretty clear, I guess, and should be expected if you have some experience in other programming languages. The situation is that name sqrt in the current scope is bound to value 9 and objects of type Int64 are not callable.
The other error
"Error: cannot assign variable Base.sqrt from module Main"
is more complex and may be non obvious. You are free to use name sqrt for your own variables in your current scope until you call or reference the sqrt function. Only after such operations the binding to sqrt is resolved in the current scope (only recently some corner case bugs related to when bindings are resolved were fixed https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/30234). From this moment you are not allowed to change the value of sqrt because Julia disallows assigning values to variables imported from other modules.
The relevant passages from the Julia manual are (https://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/manual/modules/):
The statement using Lib means that a module called Lib will be available for resolving names as needed. When a global variable is encountered that has no definition in the current module, the system will search for it among variables exported by Lib and import it if it is found there. This means that all uses of that global within the current module will resolve to the definition of that variable in Lib.
and
Once a variable is made visible via using or import, a module may not create its own variable with the same name. Imported variables are read-only; assigning to a global variable always affects a variable owned by the current module, or else raises an error.
To better understand what these rules mean I think it is best to illustrate them with an example:
julia> module A
export x, y
x = 10
y = 100
end
Main.A
julia> using .A
julia> x = 1000
1000
julia> y
100
julia> y = 1000
ERROR: cannot assign variable A.y from module Main
on the other hand by calling import explicitly instead of using you resolve the binding immediately:
julia> module A
export x, y
x = 10
y = 100
end
Main.A
julia> import .A: x, y
julia> x = 1000
ERROR: cannot assign variable A.x from module Main
And you can see that it is not something specific to Base or functions but any module and any variable. And this is actually the case when you might encounter this problem in practice, as it is rather obvious that sqrt is a predefined function, but something like SOME_CONSTANT might or might not be defined and exported by the modules you call using on and the behavior of Julia code will differ in cases when you first assign to SOME_CONSTANT in global scope and when you first read SOME_CONSTANT.
Finally, there is a special case when you want to add methods to functions defined in the other module - which is allowed or not depending on how you introduce the name in the current scope, you can read about the details here what are the rules in this case.
Bogumił's answer is good and accurate, but I think it can be described a bit more succinctly.
Julia — like most programming languages — allows you to define your own variables with the same name as things that are built-in (or more generally, provided by using a package). This is a great thing, because otherwise you'd have to tip-toe around the many hundreds of names that Julia and its packages provide.
There are two catches, though:
Once you've used a built-in name or a name from any package, you can no longer define your own variables with the same name (in the same scope). That's the Error: cannot assign variable Base.sqrt from module Main: you've already used sqrt(4) and now are trying to define sqrt=2. The workaround? Just use a different name for your variable.
You can define your own variable with the same name as a built-in name or a name from any package if you've not used it yet, but then it takes on the definition you've given it. That's what's happening with ERROR: MethodError: objects of type Int64 are not callable: you've defined something like sqrt=2 and then tried to use sqrt(4). The workaround? You can still reference the other definition by qualifying it with its module name. In this case sqrt is provided by Base, so you can still call Base.sqrt. You can even re-assign sqrt = Base.sqrt to restore its original definition.
In this manner, the names provided by Base and other packages you're using are a bit like Schrödinger's cat: they're in this kinda-there-but-not-really state until you do something with them. If you look at them first, then they exist, but if you define your own variable first, then they don't.
In various web pages, I see references to jq functions with a slash and a number following them. For example:
walk/1
I found the above notation used on a stackoverflow page.
I could not find in the jq Manual page a definition as to what this notation means. I'm guessing it might indicate that the walk function that takes 1 argument. If so, I wonder why a more meaningful notation isn't used such as is used with signatures in C++, Java, and other languages:
<function>(type1, type2, ..., typeN)
Can anyone confirm what the notation <function>/<number> means? Are other variants used?
The notation name/arity gives the name and arity of the function. "arity" is the number of arguments (i.e., parameters), so for example explode/0 means you'd just write explode without any arguments, and map/1 means you'd write something like map(f).
The fact that 0-arity functions are invoked by name, without any parentheses, makes the notation especially handy. The fact that a function name can have multiple definitions at any one time (each definition having a distinct arity) makes it easy to distinguish between them.
This notation is not used in jq programs, but it is used in the output of the (new) built-in filter, builtins/0.
By contrast, in some other programming languages, it (or some close variant, e.g. module:name/arity in Erlang) is also part of the language.
Why?
There are various difficulties which typically arise when attempting to graft a notation that's suitable for languages in which method-dispatch is based on types onto ones in which dispatch is based solely on arity.
The first, as already noted, has to do with 0-arity functions. This is especially problematic for jq as 0-arity functions are invoked in jq without parentheses.
The second is that, in general, jq functions do not require their arguments to be any one jq type. Having to write something like nth(string+number) rather than just nth/1 would be tedious at best.
This is why the manual strenuously avoids using "name(type)"-style notation. Thus we see, for example, startswith(str), rather than startswith(string). That is, the parameter names in the documentation are clearly just names, though of course they often give strong type hints.
If you're wondering why the 'name/arity' convention isn't documented in the manual, it's probably largely because the documentation was mostly written before jq supported multi-arity functions.
In summary -- any notational scheme can be made to work, but name/arity is (1) concise; (2) precise in the jq context; (3) easy-to-learn; and (4) widely in use for arity-oriented languages, at least on this planet.
I've got a symbol that represents the name of a function to be called:
julia> func_sym = :tanh
I can use that symbol to get the tanh function and call it using:
julia> eval(func_sym)(2)
0.9640275800758169
But I'd rather avoid the 'eval' there as it will be called many times and it's expensive (and func_sym can have several different values depending on context).
IIRC in Ruby you can say something like:
obj.send(func_sym, args)
Is there something similar in Julia?
EDIT: some more details on why I have functions represented by symbols:
I have a type (from a neural network) that includes the activation function, originally I included it as a funcion:
type NeuralLayer
weights::Matrix{Float32}
biases::Vector{Float32}
a_func::Function
end
However, I needed to serialize these things to files using JLD, but it's not possible to serialize a Function, so I went with a symbol:
type NeuralLayer
weights::Matrix{Float32}
biases::Vector{Float32}
a_func::Symbol
end
And currently I use the eval approach above to call the activation function. There are collections of NeuralLayers and each can have it's own activation function.
#Isaiah's answer is spot-on; perhaps even more-so after the edit to the original question. To elaborate and make this more specific to your case: I'd change your NeuralLayer type to be parametric:
type NeuralLayer{func_type}
weights::Matrix{Float32}
biases::Vector{Float32}
end
Since func_type doesn't appear in the types of the fields, the constructor will require you to explicitly specify it: layer = NeuralLayer{:excitatory}(w, b). One restriction here is that you cannot modify a type parameter.
Now, func_type could be a symbol (like you're doing now) or it could be a more functionally relevant parameter (or parameters) that tunes your activation function. Then you define your activation functions like this:
# If you define your NeuralLayer with just one parameter:
activation(layer::NeuralLayer{:inhibitory}) = …
activation(layer::NeuralLayer{:excitatory}) = …
# Or if you want to use several physiological parameters instead:
activation{g_K,g_Na,g_l}(layer::NeuralLayer{g_K,g_Na,g_l} = f(g_K, g_Na, g_l)
The key point is that functions and behavior are external to the data. Use type definitions and abstract type hierarchies to define behavior, as is coded in the external functions… but only store data itself in the types. This is dramatically different from Python or other strongly object-oriented paradigms, and it takes some getting used to.
But I'd rather avoid the 'eval' there as it will be called many times and it's expensive (and func_sym can have several different values depending on context).
This sort of dynamic dispatch is possible in Julia, but not recommended. Changing the value of 'func_sym' based on context defeats type inference as well as method specialization and inlining. Instead, the recommended approach is to use multiple dispatch, as detailed in the Methods section of the manual.