Slow to learning newer julia syntax and scoping.
In Julia v1.1.1
what is the explanation for why the MWE below throws error "ff not defined" ?
N = 5;
typp = "b";
mu = 2;
function bigfun()
function f(u,mu)
ee = mu*u;
return ee
end
function g(uv,mu)
ee = (mu^2)*uv
return ee;
end
while 1 == 1
u = ones(N);
if typp == "a"
ff(u) = f(u,mu);
elseif typp == "b"
ff(u) = g(u,mu);
end
fu = ff(u);
break;
end
end
bigfun();
This is a known bug in Julia: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/15602. You can't define an inner function conditionally. There a few ways around this issue:
Define ff as an anonymous function:
if typp == "a"
ff = u -> f(u,mu)
elseif typp == "b"
ff = u -> g(u,mu)
end
fu = ff(u)
Define ff once, and add the conditional inside of it:
function ff(u, typp)
if typp == "a"
f(u,mu)
elseif typp == "b"
g(u,mu)
end
end
fu = ff(u, typp)
Don't define the function ff at all. You don't need to, in the example you provided, just assign fu conditionally
if typp == "a"
fu = f(u,mu)
elseif typp == "b"
fu = g(u,mu)
end
As mention in the Julia Docs,
Julia uses lexical scoping, meaning that a function's scope does not inherit from its caller's scope, but from the scope in which the function was defined.
It is worth reading some examples in the above link but the gist is that the function is defined in the local scope/context of the if/else statement and does not exist outside of that scope (at the end of that function).
Related
I am trying to create a code which identifies if the elements in an array are monotonic or not.
I wrote the below code and got the error -
function isMonotonic(array)
if length(array) <= 2
return true
end
check_up = []
check_down = []
for i in range(2, length(array))
if array[i] <= array[i-1]
append!(check_up, 1)
end
if array[i] >= array[i - 1]
append!(check_down, 1)
end
end
if sum(check_up) == length(array) - 1 || sum(check_down) == length(array) - 1
return true
else
return false
end
end
isMonotonic([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7])
I am getting the below error
Error: Methoderror: no method matching zero(::Type{Any})
I think it is because I am trying to sum up the empth array, I want to understand how to overcome this problem in general, I have a solution for the above code, but in genral I want to know the reason and how to use it. I do not want to first check if the array is empty or not and then do the sum.
If you wanted to save yourself lots of effort, the simplest solution would just be:
my_ismonotonic(x) = issorted(x) || issorted(x ; rev=true)
This will return true if x is sorted either forwards, or in reverse, and false otherwise.
We could maybe make it a little more efficient using a check so we only need a single call to issorted.
function my_ismonotonic(x)
length(x) <= 2 && return true
for n = 2:length(x)
if x[n] > x[1]
return issorted(x)
elseif x[n] < x[1]
return issorted(x ; rev=true)
end
end
return true
end
# Alternatively, a neater version using findfirst
function my_ismonotonic(x)
length(x) <= 2 && return true
ii = findfirst(a -> a != x[1], x)
isnothing(ii) && return true # All elements in x are equal
if x[ii] > x[1]
return issorted(x)
else
return issorted(x ; rev=true)
end
end
The loop detects the first occurrence of an element greater than or less than the first element and then calls the appropriate issorted as soon as this occurs. If all elements in the array are equal then the loop runs over the whole array and returns true.
There are a few problems of efficiency in your approach, but the reason you are getting an actual error message is because given the input, either this expression sum(check_up) or this expression sum(check_down) will effectively result in the following call:
sum(Any[])
There is no obvious return value for this since the array could have any type, so instead you get an error. If you had used the following earlier in your function:
check_up = Int[]
check_down = Int[]
then you shouldn't have the same problem, because:
julia> sum(Int[])
0
Note also that append! is usually for appending a vector to a vector. If you just want to add a single element to a vector use push!.
I'm having trouble understanding how/why parentheses work where they otherwise should not work®.
f = function(...) substitute(...()); f(a, b)
[[1]]
a
[[2]]
b
# but, substitute returns ..1
f2 = function(...) substitute(...); f2(a, b)
a
Normally an error is thrown, could not find function "..." or '...' used in an incorrect context, for example when calling (\(...) ...())(5).
What I've tried
I have looked at the source code of substitute to find out why this doesn't happen here. R Internals 1.1.1 and 1.5.2 says ... is of SEXPTYPE DOTSXP, a pairlist of promises. These promises are what is extracted by substitute.
# \-substitute #R
# \-do_substitute #C
# \-substituteList #C recursive
# \-substitute #C
Going line-by-line, I am stuck at substituteList, in which h is the current element of ... being processed. This happens recursively at line 2832 if (TYPEOF(h) == DOTSXP) h = substituteList(h, R_NilValue);. I haven't found exception handling of a ...() case in the source code, so I suspect something before this has happened.
In ?substitute we find substitute works on a purely lexical basis. Does it mean ...() is a parser trick?
parse(text = "(\\(...) substitute(...()))(a, b)") |> getParseData() |> subset(text == "...", select = c(7, 9))
#> token text
#> 4 SYMBOL_FORMALS ...
#> 10 SYMBOL_FUNCTION_CALL ...
The second ellipsis is recognized during lexical analysis as the name of a function call. It doesn't have its own token like |> does. The output is a pairlist ( typeof(f(a, b)) ), which in this case is the same as a regular list (?). I guess it is not a parser trick. But whatever it is, it has been around for a while!
Question:
How does ...() work?
Note: When referring to documentation and source code, I provide links to an unofficial GitHub mirror of R's official Subversion repository. The links are bound to commit 97b6424 in the GitHub repo, which maps to revision 81461 in the Subversion repo (the latest at the time of this edit).
substitute is a "special" whose arguments are not evaluated (doc).
typeof(substitute)
[1] "special"
That means that the return value of substitute may not agree with parser logic, depending on how the unevaluated arguments are processed internally.
In general, substitute receives the call ...(<exprs>) as a LANGSXP of the form (pseudocode) pairlist(R_DotsSymbol, <exprs>) (doc). The context of the substitute call determines how the SYMSXP R_DotsSymbol is processed. Specifically, if substitute was called inside of a function with ... as a formal argument and rho as its execution environment, then the result of
findVarInFrame3(rho, R_DotsSymbol, TRUE)
in the body of C utility substituteList (source) is either a DOTSXP or R_MissingArg—the latter if and only if f was called without arguments (doc). In other contexts, the result is R_UnboundValue or (exceptionally) some other SEXP—the latter if and only if a value is bound to the name ... in rho. Each of these cases is handled specially by substituteList.
The multiplicity in the processing of R_DotsSymbol is the reason why these R statements give different results:
f0 <- function() substitute(...(n = 1)); f0()
## ...(n = 1)
f1 <- function(...) substitute(...(n = 1)); f1()
## $n
## [1] 1
g0 <- function() {... <- quote(x); substitute(...(n = 1))}; g0()
## Error in g0() : '...' used in an incorrect context
g1 <- function(...) {... <- quote(x); substitute(...(n = 1))}; g1()
## Error in g1() : '...' used in an incorrect context
h0 <- function() {... <- NULL; substitute(...(n = 1))}; h0()
## $n
## [1] 1
h1 <- function(...) {... <- NULL; substitute(...(n = 1))}; h1()
## $n
## [1] 1
Given how ...(n = 1) is parsed, you might have expected f1 to return call("...", n = 1), both g0 and g1 to return call("x", n = 1), and both h0 and h1 to throw an error, but that is not the case for the above, mostly undocumented reasons.
Internals
When called inside of the R function f,
f <- function(...) substitute(...(<exprs>))
substitute evaluates a call to the C utility do_substitute—you can learn this by looking here—in which argList gets a LISTSXP of the form pairlist(x, R_MissingArg), where x is a LANGSXP of the form pairlist(R_DotsSymbol, <exprs>) (source).
If you follow the body of do_substitute, then you will find that the value of t passed to substituteList from do_substitute is a LISTSXP of the form pairlist(copy_of_x) (source).
It follows that the while loop inside of the substituteList call (source) has exactly one iteration and that the statement CAR(el) == R_DotsSymbol in the body of the loop (source) is false in that iteration.
In the false branch of the conditional (source), h gets the value
pairlist(substituteList(copy_of_x, env)). The loop exits and substituteList returns h to do_substitute, which in turn returns CAR(h) to R (source 1, 2, 3).
Hence the return value of substitute is substituteList(copy_of_x, env), and it remains to deduce the identity of this SEXP. Inside of this call to substituteList, the while loop has 1+m iterations, where m is the number of <exprs>. In the first iteration, the statement CAR(el) == R_DotsSymbol in the body of the loop is true.
In the true branch of the conditional (source), h is either a DOTSXP or R_MissingArg, because f has ... as a formal argument (doc). Continuing, you will find that substituteList returns:
R_NilValue if h was R_MissingArg in the first while iteration and m = 0,
or, otherwise,
a LISTSXP listing the expressions in h (if h was a DOTSXP in the first while iteration) followed by <exprs> (if m > 1), all unevaluated and without substitutions, because the execution environment of f is empty at the time of the substitute call.
Indeed:
f <- function(...) substitute(...())
is.null(f())
## [1] TRUE
f <- function(...) substitute(...(n = 1))
identical(f(a = sin(x), b = zzz), pairlist(a = quote(sin(x)), b = quote(zzz), n = 1))
## [1] TRUE
Misc
FWIW, it helped me to recompile R after adding some print statements to coerce.c. For example, I added the following before UNPROTECT(3); in the body of do_substitute (source):
Rprintf("CAR(t) == R_DotsSymbol? %d\n",
CAR(t) == R_DotsSymbol);
if (TYPEOF(CAR(t)) == LISTSXP || TYPEOF(CAR(t)) == LANGSXP) {
Rprintf("TYPEOF(CAR(t)) = %s, length(CAR(t)) = %d\n",
type2char(TYPEOF(CAR(t))), length(CAR(t)));
Rprintf("CAR(CAR(t)) = R_DotsSymbol? %d\n",
CAR(CAR(t)) == R_DotsSymbol);
Rprintf("TYPEOF(CDR(CAR(t))) = %s, length(CDR(CAR(t))) = %d\n",
type2char(TYPEOF(CDR(CAR(t)))), length(CDR(CAR(t))));
}
if (TYPEOF(s) == LISTSXP || TYPEOF(s) == LANGSXP) {
Rprintf("TYPEOF(s) = %s, length(s) = %d\n",
type2char(TYPEOF(s)), length(s));
Rprintf("TYPEOF(CAR(s)) = %s, length(CAR(s)) = %d\n",
type2char(TYPEOF(CAR(s))), length(CAR(s)));
}
which helped me confirm what was going into and coming out of the substituteList call on the previous line:
f <- function(...) substitute(...(n = 1))
invisible(f(hello, world, hello(world)))
CAR(t) == R_DotsSymbol? 0
TYPEOF(CAR(t)) = language, length(CAR(t)) = 2
CAR(CAR(t)) = R_DotsSymbol? 1
TYPEOF(CDR(CAR(t))) = pairlist, length(CDR(CAR(t))) = 1
TYPEOF(s) = pairlist, length(s) = 1
TYPEOF(CAR(s)) = pairlist, length(CAR(s)) = 4
invisible(substitute(...()))
CAR(t) == R_DotsSymbol? 0
TYPEOF(CAR(t)) = language, length(CAR(t)) = 1
CAR(CAR(t)) = R_DotsSymbol? 1
TYPEOF(CDR(CAR(t))) = NULL, length(CDR(CAR(t))) = 0
TYPEOF(s) = pairlist, length(s) = 1
TYPEOF(CAR(s)) = language, length(CAR(s)) = 1
Obviously, compiling R with debugging symbols and running R under a debugger helps, too.
Another puzzle
Just noticed this oddity:
g <- function(...) substitute(...(n = 1), new.env())
gab <- g(a = sin(x), b = zzz)
typeof(gab)
## [1] "language"
gab
## ...(n = 1)
Someone here can do another deep dive to find out why the result is a LANGSXP rather than a LISTSXP when you supply env different from environment() (including env = NULL).
My goal is to be able to generate a list of expressions, p.g., check that a number is in some interval, and then evaluate it.
I was able to do it in the following way.
First, a function genExpr that creates such an Expr:
function genExpr(a::Real, b::Real)::Expr
quote
x < $(a + b) && x > $(a - b)
end
end
Create two expressions:
e1 = genExpr(0,3)
e2 = genExpr(8,2)
Now, my problem is how to pass these expressions to a function along with a number x. Then, this function, checks if such a number satisfies both conditions. I was able to achieve it with the following function:
function applyTest(y::Real, vars::Expr...)::Bool
global x = y
for var in vars
if eval(var)
return true
end
end
return false
end
This works, but the appearance of global suggests the existence of a better way of obtaining the same goal. And that's my question: create a function with arguments a number and a list of Expr's. Such function returns true if any condition is satisfied and false otherwise.
This looks like a you are probably looking into using a macro:
macro genExpr(a::Real, b::Real)
quote
x-> x < $(a + b) && x > $(a - b)
end
end
function applyTest(y::Real, vars::Function...)::Bool
any(var(y) for var in vars)
end
Testing:
julia> e1 = #genExpr(0,3)
#15 (generic function with 1 method)
julia> e2 = #genExpr(8,2)
#17 (generic function with 1 method)
julia> applyTest(0,e1,e2)
true
However, with this simple code a function just generating a lambda would be as good:
function genExpr2(a::Real, b::Real)
return x-> x < (a + b) && x > (a - b)
end
what is the prefered way to investigate or print out further detail (print input variable of a function, iteration number, etc.) of a failed #test inside a #testset?
I tried to wrap a try-catch-block around it. However, it doesn't seem to fire.
Here is a made-up example:
using Base.Test
rng = MersenneTwister(3231);
# define function that works different than expected
function compare(a,b)
if a == 3 && b == 3
return false
else
return a == b
end
end
# test function in a test set
#testset "Test Compare Function" begin
for iii = 1:10
number = rand(rng,1:10)
try
#test compare(number,number) == true
catch
#show(number)
end
end
end
Thank you very much!
You need to make sure it tests after the printing.
#testset "Test Compare Function" begin
for iii = 1:10
number = rand(rng,1:10)
#test begin
res = compare(number,number) == true
if !res
#show number
flush(STDOUT)
end
res
end
end
end
I have tried to break out of nested loops in a quite ineffective way:
BreakingPoint = false
a=["R1","R2","R3"]
b=["R2","R3","R4"]
for i in a
for j in b
if i == j
BreakingPoint = true
println("i = $i, j = $j.")
end
if BreakingPoint == true; break; end
end
if BreakingPoint == true; break; end
end
Is there an easier way to do that? In my actual problem, I have no idea about what are in arrays a and b, apart from they are ASCIIStrings. The array names (a and b in sample code) are also auto-generated through meta-programming methods.
You can do one of two things
have the loop statement (if thats what its called) in a multi outer loop
for i in a, j in b
if i == j
break
end
end
which is clean, but not always possible
I will be crucified for suggesting this, but you can use #goto and #label
for i in a
for j in b
if i == j
#goto escape_label
end
end
end
#label escape_label
If you go with the #goto/#label way, for the sake of the people maintaining/reviewing the code, document your use properly, as navigating code with labels is breathtakingly annoying
For the discussion on the multi-loop break, see this
Put the 2D loop into a function, and do an early return when you want to break.