I have a cell array of strings of length 3
headers_ca =
{
[1,1] = time
[1,2] = x
[1,3] = y
}
I want to create a struct that mimics a python dict, with the values in headers_ca as keys (fieldnames in Octave) and an initializer value ival for all entries.
It would be a struct, since even dict exists in octave, it has been deprecated.
I could do (brute force) s = struct("time", ival, "x", ival, "y", ival);
What is the most concise way to do this?
I know I can do a for loop.
Can it be avoided?
I would be working with much longer cell arrays.
You can use struct or cell2struct to create the structure.
headers_ca = {'time','x','y'};
headers_ca(2, :) = {ival};
s = struct(headers_ca{:});
headers_ca = {'time','x','y'};
ivals = repmat({ival}, numel(headers_ca), 1);
s = cell2struct(ivals, headers_ca);
Related
I'm trying to run a loop over different functions with different number of arguments. The variables are created at runtime inside the loop, and I want to use eval at each iteration to instantiate a Struct using the variable :symbol. However, I can't do this since eval only works in the global scope. This is the MWE for the case that works:
function f1(x); return x; end
function f2(x1,x2); return x1+x2; end
handles = [f1,f2]
args =[:(x1),:(x1,x2)]
x1 = 1; x2 = 1;
for (i,f) in enumerate(handles)
params = eval(args[i])
#show f(params...)
end
f(params...) = 1
f(params...) = 2
However, if I move the variable definitions inside the loop, which is what I actually want, it doesn't work after restarting Julia to clear the workspace.
function f1(x); return x; end
function f2(x1,x2); return x1+x2; end
handles = [f1,f2]
args =[:(x1),:(x1,x2)]
for (i,f) in enumerate(handles)
x1 = 1; x2 = 1;
params = eval(args[i])
#show f(params...)
end
ERROR: UndefVarError: x1 not defined
I've tried several of the answers, such as this one, but I can't seem to make it work. I could write a custom dispatch function that takes[x1,x2] and calls f1 or f2 with the correct arguments. But still, is there any way to do this with eval or with an alternative elegant solution?
EDIT: here are more details as to what I'm trying to do in my code. I have a config struct for each algorithm, and in this I want to define beforehand the arguments it takes
KMF_config = AlgConfig(
name = "KMF",
constructor = KMC.KMF,
parameters = :(mu,N,L,p),
fit = KMC.fit!)
MF_config = AlgConfig(
name = "MF",
constructor = KMC.MF,
parameters = :(mu,N,L),
fit = KMC.fit!)
alg_config_list = [KMF_config, MF_config]
for (i,alg_config) in enumerate(alg_config_list)
mu,N,L,p,A,B,C,D,data = gen_vars() #this returns a bunch of variables that are used in different algorithms
method = alg_config.constructor(eval(method.parameters)...)
method.fit(data)
end
One possible solution is to have a function take all the variables and method, and return a tuple with a subset of variables according to method.name. But I'm not sure if it's the best way to do it.
Here's an approach using multiple dispatch rather than eval:
run_a(x, y) = x + 10*y
run_b(x, y, z) = x + 10*y + 100*z
extract(p, ::typeof(run_a)) = (p.x, p.y)
extract(p, ::typeof(run_b)) = (p.x, p.y, p.z)
genvars() = (x=1, y=2, z=3)
function doall()
todo = [
run_a,
run_b,
]
for runalg in todo
v = genvars()
p = extract(v, runalg)
#show runalg(p...)
end
end
In your example you would replace run_a and run_b with KMC.KMF and KMC.MF.
Edit: Cleaned up example to avoid structs that don't exist in your example.
In the Help Documentation of Scilab 6.0.2, I can read the following instruction on the Overloading entry, regarding the last operation code "iext" showed in this entry's table:
"The 6 char code may be used for some complex insertion algorithm like x.b(2) = 33 where b field is not defined in the structure x. The insertion is automatically decomposed into temp = x.b; temp(2) = 33; x.b = temp. The 6 char code is used for the first step of this algorithm. The 6 overloading function is very similar to the e's one."
But I can't find a complete example on how to use this "char 6 code" to overload a function. I'm trying to use it, without success. Does anyone have an example on how to do this?
The code bellow creates a normal "mlist" as a example. Which needs overloading functions
A = rand(5,3)
names = ["colA" "colB" "colC"]
units = ["ft" "in" "lb"]
M = mlist(["Mlog" "names" "units" names],names,units,A(:,1),A(:,2),A(:,3))
Following are the overload functions:
//define display
function %Mlog_p(M)
n = size(M.names,"*")
formatStr = strcat(repmat("%10s ",1,n)) + "\n"
formatNum = strcat(repmat("%0.10f ",1,n)) + "\n"
mprintf(formatStr,M.names)
mprintf(formatStr,M.units)
disp([M(M.names(1)),M(M.names(2)),M(M.names(3))])
end
//define extraction operation
function [Mat]=%Mlog_e(varargin)
M = varargin($)
cols = [1:size(M.names,"*")] // This will also work
cols = cols(varargin($-1)) // when varargin($-1) = 1:1:$
Mat = []
if length(varargin)==3 then
for i = M.names(cols)
Mat = [Mat M(i)(varargin(1))]
end
else
for i=1:size(M.names(cols),"*")
Mat(i).name = M.names(cols(i))
Mat(i).unit = M.units(cols(i))
Mat(i).data = M(:,cols(i))
end
end
endfunction
//define insertion operations (a regular matrix into a Mlog matrix)
function ML=%s_i_Mlog(i,j,V,M)
names = M.names
units = M.units
A = M(:,:) // uses function above
A(i,j) = V
ML = mlist(["Mlog" "names" "units" names],names,units,A(:,1),A(:,2),A(:,3))
endfunction
//insertion operation with structures (the subject of the question)
function temp = %Mlog_6(j,M)
temp = M(j) // uses function %Mlog_e
endfunction
function M = %st_i_Mlog(j,st,M)
A = M(:,:) // uses function %Mlog_e
M.names(j) = st.name // uses function above
M.units(j) = st.unit // uses function above
A(:,j) = st.data // uses function above
names = M.names
units = M.units
M = mlist(["Mlog" "names" "units" names],names,units,A(:,1),A(:,2),A(:,3))
endfunction
The first overload (displays mlist) will show the matrix in the form of the following table:
--> M
M =
colA colB colC
ft in lb
0.4720517 0.6719395 0.5628382
0.0623731 0.1360619 0.5531093
0.0854401 0.2119744 0.0768984
0.0134564 0.4015942 0.5360758
0.3543002 0.4036219 0.0900212
The next overloads (extraction and insertion) Will allow the table to be access as a simple matrix M(i,j).
The extraction function Will also allow M to be access by column, which returns a structure, for instance:
--> M(2)
ans =
name: "colB"
unit: "in"
data: [5x1 constant]
The last two functions are the overloads mentioned in the question. They allow the column metadata to be changed in a structure form.
--> M(2).name = "length"
M =
colA length colC
ft in lb
0.4720517 0.6719395 0.5628382
0.0623731 0.1360619 0.5531093
0.0854401 0.2119744 0.0768984
0.0134564 0.4015942 0.5360758
0.3543002 0.4036219 0.0900212
I'd like to write an iterator that behaves exactly like ipairs, except which takes a second argument. The second argument would be a table of the indices that ipairs should loop over.
I'm wondering if my current approach is inefficient, and how I could improve it with closures.
I'm also open to other methods of accomplishing the same thing. But I like iterators because they're easy to use and debug.
I'll be making references to and using some of the terminology from Programming in Lua (PiL), especially the chapter on closures (chapter 7 in the link).
So I'd like to have this,
ary = {10,20,30,40}
for i,v in selpairs(ary, {1,3}) do
ary[i] = v+5
print(string.format("ary[%d] is now = %g", i, ary[i]))
end
which would output this:
ary[1] is now = 15
ary[3] is now = 35
My current approach is this : (in order: iterator, factory, then generic for)
iter = function (t, s)
s = s + 1
local i = t.sel[s]
local v = t.ary[i]
if v then
return s, i, v
end
end
function selpairs (ary, sel)
local t = {}
t.ary = ary
t.sel = sel
return iter, t, 0
end
ary = {10,20,30,40}
for _,i,v in selpairs(ary, {1,3}) do
ary[i] = v+5
print(string.format("ary[%d] is now = %g", i, ary[i]))
end
-- same output as before
It works. sel is the array of 'selected' indices. ary is the array you want to perform the loop on. Inside iter, s indexes sel, and i indexes ary.
But there are a few glaring problems.
I must always discard the first returned argument s (_ in the for loop). I never need s, but it has to be returned as the first argument since it is the "control variable".
The "invariant state" is actually two invariant states (ary and sel) packed into a single table. Pil says that this is more expensive, and recommends using closures. (Hence my writing this question).
The rest can of this can be ignored. I'm just providing more context for what I'm wanting to use selpairs for.
I'm mostly concerned with the second problem. I'm writing this for a library I'm making for generating music. Doing simple stuff like ary[i] = v+5 won't really be a problem. But when I do stuff like accessing object properties and checking bounds, then I get concerned that the 'invariant state as a table' approach may be creating unnecessary overhead. Should I be concerned about this?
If anything, I'd like to know how to write this with closures just for the knowledge.
Of course, I've tried using closures, but I'm failing to understand the scope of "locals in enclosing functions" and how it relates to a for loop calling an iterator.
As for the first problem, I imagine I could make the control variable a table of s, i, and v. And at the return in iter, unpack the table in the desired order.
But I'm guessing that this is inefficient too.
Eventually, I'd like to write an iterator which does this, except nested into itself. My main data structure is arrays of arrays, so I'd hope to make something like this:
ary_of_arys = {
{10, 20, 30, 40},
{5, 6, 7, 8},
{0.9, 1, 1.1, 1.2},
}
for aoa,i,v in selpairs_inarrays(ary_of_arys, {1,3}, {2,3,4}) do
ary_of_arys[aoa][i] = v+5
end
And this too, could use the table approach, but it'd be nice to know how to take advantage of closures.
I've actually done something similar: A function that basically does the same thing by taking a function as it's fourth and final argument. It works just fine, but would this be less inefficient than an iterator?
You can hide "control variable" in an upvalue:
local function selpairs(ary, sel)
local s = 0
return
function()
s = s + 1
local i = sel[s]
local v = ary[i]
if v then
return i, v
end
end
end
Usage:
local ary = {10,20,30,40}
for i, v in selpairs(ary, {1,3}) do
ary[i] = v+5
print(string.format("ary[%d] is now = %g", i, ary[i]))
end
Nested usage:
local ary_of_arys = {
{10, 20, 30, 40},
{5, 6, 7, 8},
{0.9, 1, 1.1, 1.2},
}
local outer_indices = {1,3}
local inner_indices = {2,3,4}
for aoa, ary in selpairs(ary_of_arys, outer_indices) do
for i, v in selpairs(ary, inner_indices) do
ary[i] = v+5 -- This is the same as ary_of_arys[aoa][i] = v+5
end
end
Not sure if I understand what you want to achive but why not simply write
local values = {"a", "b", "c", "d"}
for i,key in ipairs {3,4,1} do
print(values[key])
end
and so forth, instead of implementing all that interator stuff? I mean your use case is rather simple. It can be easily extended to more dimensions.
And here's a co-routine based possibility:
function selpairs(t,selected)
return coroutine.wrap(function()
for _,k in ipairs(selected) do
coroutine.yield(k,t[k])
end
end)
end
Suppose I have a Dict defined as follows:
x = Dict{AbstractString,Array{Integer,1}}("A" => [1,2,3], "B" => [4,5,6])
I want to convert this to a DataFrame object (from the DataFrames module). Constructing a DataFrame has a similar syntax to constructing a dictionary. For example, the above dictionary could be manually constructed as a data frame as follows:
DataFrame(A = [1,2,3], B = [4,5,6])
I haven't found a direct way to get from a dictionary to a data frame but I figured one could exploit the syntactic similarity and write a macro to do this. The following doesn't work at all but it illustrates the approach I had in mind:
macro dict_to_df(x)
typeof(eval(x)) <: Dict || throw(ArgumentError("Expected Dict"))
return quote
DataFrame(
for k in keys(eval(x))
#eval ($k) = $(eval(x)[$k])
end
)
end
end
I also tried writing this as a function, which does work when all dictionary values have the same length:
function dict_to_df(x::Dict)
s = "DataFrame("
for k in keys(x)
v = x[k]
if typeof(v) <: AbstractString
v = string('"', v, '"')
end
s *= "$(k) = $(v),"
end
s = chop(s) * ")"
return eval(parse(s))
end
Is there a better, faster, or more idiomatic approach to this?
Another method could be
DataFrame(Any[values(x)...],Symbol[map(symbol,keys(x))...])
It was a bit tricky to get the types in order to access the right constructor. To get a list of the constructors for DataFrames I used methods(DataFrame).
The DataFrame(a=[1,2,3]) way of creating a DataFrame uses keyword arguments. To use splatting (...) for keyword arguments the keys need to be symbols. In the example x has strings, but these can be converted to symbols. In code, this is:
DataFrame(;[Symbol(k)=>v for (k,v) in x]...)
Finally, things would be cleaner if x had originally been with symbols. Then the code would go:
x = Dict{Symbol,Array{Integer,1}}(:A => [1,2,3], :B => [4,5,6])
df = DataFrame(;x...)
I am stuck at creating a matrix of a matrix (vector in this case)
What I have so far
index = zeros(size(A)) // This is some matrix but isn't important to the question
indexIndex = 1;
for rows=1:length(R)
for columns=1:length(K)
if(A(rows,columns)==x)
V=[rows columns]; // I create a vector holding the row + column
index(indexIndex) = V(1,2) // I want to store all these vectors
indexIndex = indexIndex + 1
end
end
end
I have tried various ways of getting the information out of V (such as V(1:2)) but nothing seems to work correctly.
In other words, I'm trying to get an array of points.
Thanks in advance
I do not understand your question exactly. What is the size of A? What is x, K and R? But under some assumptions,
Using list
You could use a list
// Create some matrix A
A = zeros(8,8)
//initialize the list
index = list();
// Get the dimensions of A
rows = size(A,1);
cols = size(A,2);
x = 0;
for row=1:rows
for col=1:cols
if(A(row,col)==x)
// Create a vector holding row and col
V=[row col];
// Append it to list using $ (last index) + 1
index($+1) = V
end
end
end
Single indexed matrices
Another approach would be to make use of the fact an multi-dimensional matrix can also be indexed by a single value.
For instance create a random matrix named a:
-->a = rand(3,3)
a =
0.6212882 0.5211472 0.0881335
0.3454984 0.2870401 0.4498763
0.7064868 0.6502795 0.7227253
Access the first value:
-->a(1)
ans =
0.6212882
-->a(1,1)
ans =
0.6212882
Access the second value:
-->a(2)
ans =
0.3454984
-->a(2,1)
ans =
0.3454984
So that proves how the single indexing works. Now to apply it to your problem and knocking out a for-loop.
// Create some matrix A
A = zeros(8,8)
//initialize the array of indices
index = [];
// Get the dimensions of A
rows = size(A,1);
cols = size(A,2);
x = 0;
for i=1:length(A)
if(A(i)==x)
// Append it to list using $ (last index) + 1
index($+1) = i;
end
end
Without for-loop
If you just need the values that adhere to a certain condition you could also do something like this
values = A(A==x);
Be carefull when comparing doubles, these are not always (un)equal when you expect.