for faster colision control I create dict which is used as sparse array from array of objects T2.
But this cod throw exeption
KeyError: key [142, 69, 77] not found
Here us my code:
Ans=Dict{T1,Vector{T2}}()
for i in L
pos=pos_func(i)
if (pos in Ans.keys)
push!(Ans[pos],i)
else
Ans[pos]=Vector{T2}([i])
end
end
I catched event and printed pos, Ans.keys and (pos in Ans.keys). I found that pos is one of Ans.keys and (pos in Ans.keys)==True. But anyway I cannot get Ans[pos].
Julia Version 1.4.0 Commit b8e9a9ecc6 (2020-03-21 16:36 UTC)
What is the reason for such behaviour? Why same code can works half times?
You should use the keys() function in order to get the keys of your dictionary instead of accessing the keys field. (Note that, in most cases, it is not a good idea to access internal fields of Julia objects, especially when accessor methods exist).
And in the particular case of testing whether a given key appears in a Dict, using haskey() would be even more idomatic.
The following should work:
# Some definitions so that your example is runnable
julia> T1 = Int;
julia> T2 = Int;
julia> L = 1:10;
julia> pos_func(i) = i%3;
julia> Ans=Dict{T1,Vector{T2}}()
Dict{Int64,Array{Int64,1}} with 0 entries
julia> for i in L
pos=pos_func(i)
if haskey(Ans, pos) # <- keys(Ans) instead of Ans.keys
push!(Ans[pos],i)
else
Ans[pos] = T2[i] # or maybe simply [i], unless your collection L is heterogeneous
end
end
julia> Ans
Dict{Int64,Array{Int64,1}} with 3 entries:
0 => [3, 6, 9]
2 => [2, 5, 8]
1 => [1, 4, 7, 10]
Related
I want to find the length, nc, of this "vector of functions". I should be 2.
comp(x) = [([x[5], x[6], x[7], x[8],x[9], x[10]], tmp(x)) ; ([x[1],x[2]], [x[3],x[4]])];
nc = ....
I tried with length(comp) and length(comp(x)) but it doesn't work. I get "x not defined" and "no method matching length(::typeof(comp))", respectively.
Pulling together some of the comments to hopefully make things clearer:
What you have written is essentially
function comp(x)
a = [x[5], x[6], x[7], x[8],x[9], x[10]]
b = [x[1],x[2]]
c = [x[3],x[4]]
return [(a, tmp(x)); (b, c)]
end
that is, you have defined a function comp which takes one argument x and then returns a 2-element vector of 2-element tuples, with the first tuple holding values 5 to 10 of x and the result of tmp(x) (this function is not defined in your code so we don't know what it returns), and the second tuple holding the first and second, and third and fourth elements of x, respectively.
To illustrate, assume tmp(x) just sums up the elements of x, then we can pass some array (in the below example a range) of numbers to comp and see it in action:
julia> tmp(x) = sum(x)
tmp (generic function with 1 method)
julia> comp(1:20)
2-element Vector{Tuple{Vector{Int64}, Any}}:
([5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], 210)
([1, 2], [3, 4])
and you can get the result of the return value:
julia> length(comp(1:20))
2
I'm still learning Julia, and I recently came across the following code excerpt that flummoxed me:
res = (; [(:x, 10), (:y, 20)]...) # why the semicolon in front?
println(res) # (x = 10, y = 20)
println(typeof(res)) # NamedTuple{(:x, :y), Tuple{Int64, Int64}}
I understand the "splat" operator ..., but what happens when the semicolon appear first in a tuple? In other words, how does putting a semicolon in (; [(:x, 10), (:y, 20)]...) create a NamedTuple? Is this some undocumented feature/trick?
Thanks for any pointers.
Yes, this is actually a documented feature, but perhaps not a very well known one. As the documentation for NamedTuple notes:
help?> NamedTuple
search: NamedTuple #NamedTuple
NamedTuple
NamedTuples are, as their name suggests, named Tuples. That is, they're a tuple-like
collection of values, where each entry has a unique name, represented as a Symbol.
Like Tuples, NamedTuples are immutable; neither the names nor the values can be
modified in place after construction.
Accessing the value associated with a name in a named tuple can be done using field
access syntax, e.g. x.a, or using getindex, e.g. x[:a]. A tuple of the names can be
obtained using keys, and a tuple of the values can be obtained using values.
[... some other non-relevant parts of the documentation omitted ...]
In a similar fashion as to how one can define keyword arguments programmatically, a
named tuple can be created by giving a pair name::Symbol => value or splatting an
iterator yielding such pairs after a semicolon inside a tuple literal:
julia> (; :a => 1)
(a = 1,)
julia> keys = (:a, :b, :c); values = (1, 2, 3);
julia> (; zip(keys, values)...)
(a = 1, b = 2, c = 3)
As in keyword arguments, identifiers and dot expressions imply names:
julia> x = 0
0
julia> t = (; x)
(x = 0,)
julia> (; t.x)
(x = 0,)
I came away from Professor Frisby's Mostly Adequate Guide to Functional Programming with what seems to be a misconception about Maybe.
I believe:
map(add1, Just [1, 2, 3])
// => Just [2, 3, 4]
My feeling coming away from the aforementioned guide is that Maybe.map should try to call Array.map on the array, essentially returning Just(map(add1, [1, 2, 3]).
When I tried this using Sanctuary's Maybe type, and more recently Elm's Maybe type, I was disappointed to discover that neither of them support this (or, perhaps, I don't understand how they support this).
In Sanctuary,
> S.map(S.add(1), S.Just([1, 2, 3]))
! Invalid value
add :: FiniteNumber -> FiniteNumber -> FiniteNumber
^^^^^^^^^^^^
1
1) [1, 2, 3] :: Array Number, Array FiniteNumber, Array NonZeroFiniteNumber, Array Integer, Array ValidNumber
The value at position 1 is not a member of ‘FiniteNumber’.
In Elm,
> Maybe.map sqrt (Just [1, 2, 3])
-- TYPE MISMATCH --------------------------------------------- repl-temp-000.elm
The 2nd argument to function `map` is causing a mismatch.
4| Maybe.map sqrt (Just [1, 2, 3])
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Function `map` is expecting the 2nd argument to be:
Maybe Float
But it is:
Maybe (List number)
Similarly, I feel like I should be able to treat a Just(Just(1)) as a Just(1). On the other hand, my intuition about [[1]] is completely the opposite. Clearly, map(add1, [[1]]) should return [NaN] and not [[2]] or any other thing.
In Elm I was able to do the following:
> Maybe.map (List.map (add 1)) (Just [1, 2, 3])
Just [2,3,4] : Maybe.Maybe (List number)
Which is what I want to do, but not how I want to do it.
How should one map over Maybe List?
You have two functors to deal with: Maybe and List. What you're looking for is some way to combine them. You can simplify the Elm example you've posted by function composition:
> (Maybe.map << List.map) add1 (Just [1, 2, 3])
Just [2,3,4] : Maybe.Maybe (List number)
This is really just a short-hand of the example you posted which you said was not how you wanted to do it.
Sanctuary has a compose function, so the above would be represented as:
> S.compose(S.map, S.map)(S.add(1))(S.Just([1, 2, 3]))
Just([2, 3, 4])
Similarly, I feel like I should be able to treat a Just(Just(1)) as a Just(1)
This can be done using the join from the elm-community/maybe-extra package.
join (Just (Just 1)) == Just 1
join (Just Nothing) == Nothing
join Nothing == Nothing
Sanctuary has a join function as well, so you can do the following:
S.join(S.Just(S.Just(1))) == Just(1)
S.join(S.Just(S.Nothing)) == Nothing
S.join(S.Nothing) == Nothing
As Chad mentioned, you want to transform values nested within two functors.
Let's start by mapping over each individually to get comfortable:
> S.map(S.toUpper, ['foo', 'bar', 'baz'])
['FOO', 'BAR', 'BAZ']
> S.map(Math.sqrt, S.Just(64))
Just(8)
Let's consider the general type of map:
map :: Functor f => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b
Now, let's specialize this type for the two uses above:
map :: (String -> String) -> Array String -> Array String
map :: (Number -> Number) -> Maybe Number -> Maybe Number
So far so good. But in your case we want to map over a value of type Maybe (Array Number). We need a function with this type:
:: Maybe (Array Number) -> Maybe (Array Number)
If we map over S.Just([1, 2, 3]) we'll need to provide a function which takes [1, 2, 3]—the inner value—as an argument. So the function we provide to S.map must be a function of type Array (Number) -> Array (Number). S.map(S.add(1)) is such a function. Bringing this all together we arrive at:
> S.map(S.map(S.add(1)), S.Just([1, 2, 3]))
Just([2, 3, 4])
Hello i trying create converter method from Disct to Vector in Julia language.
But i receive error, with i can't understand
ERROR: TypeError: Tuple: in parameter, expected Type{T}, got Dict{AbstractString,Int64}
My code
type Family
name::UTF8String
value::Int
end
function convertToVector(a1::Dict{AbstractString, Int64}())
A::Vector{Node}
for k in sort(collect(keys(a1)))
push!(A, Family(a1[k] , k))
end
return A
end
Any idea hot to change convertToVector method ?
There were several typos in the above code, but I think this should work:
# No () after the type of a1
# Also, see comment, better to parameterize function, use concrete type for Dict
function convertToVector{T<:AbstractString}(a1::Dict{T, Int64})
# This is how you create an empty vector to hold Family objects
A = Vector{Family}()
for k in sort(collect(keys(a1)))
# The values passed to the Family constructor were backwards
push!(A, Family(k, a1[k]))
end
A
end
Another way (probably not very quick):
julia> dict = Dict("fred" => 3, "jim" => 4)
Dict{ASCIIString,Int64} with 2 entries:
"fred" => 3
"jim" => 4
julia> Vector{Family}(map(f -> Family(f...), map(x -> collect(x), dict)))
2-element Array{Family,1}:
Family("fred",3)
Family("jim",4)
Perhaps I've been using too much Lisp recently...
I am trying to do in Julia what this Python code does. (Find all pairs from the two lists whose combined value is above 7.)
#Python
def sum_is_large(a, b):
return a + b > 7
l1 = [1,2,3]
l2 = [4,5,6]
l3 = [(a,b) for a in l1 for b in l2 if sum_is_large(a, b)]
print(l3)
There is no if for list comprehensions in Julia. And if I use filter(), I'm not sure if I can pass two arguments. So my best suggestion is this:
#Julia
function sum_is_large(pair)
a, b = pair
return a + b > 7
end
l1 = [1,2,3]
l2 = [4,5,6]
l3 = filter(sum_is_large, [(i,j) for i in l1, j in l2])
print(l3)
I don't find this very appealing. So my question is, is there a better way in Julia?
Using the very popular package Iterators.jl, in Julia:
using Iterators # install using Pkg.add("Iterators")
filter(x->sum(x)>7,product(l1,l2))
is an iterator producing the pairs. So to get the same printout as the OP:
l3iter = filter(x->sum(x)>7,product(l1,l2))
for p in l3iter println(p); end
The iterator approach is potentially much more memory efficient. Ofcourse, one could just l3 = collect(l3iter) to get the pair vector.
#user2317519, just curious, is there an equivalent iterator form for python?
Guards (if) are now available in Julia v0.5 (currently in the release-candidate stage):
julia> v1 = [1, 2, 3];
julia> v2 = [4, 5, 6];
julia> v3 = [(a, b) for a in v1, b in v2 if a+b > 7]
3-element Array{Tuple{Int64,Int64},1}:
(3,5)
(2,6)
(3,6)
Note that generators are also now available:
julia> g = ( (a, b) for a in v1, b in v2 if a+b > 7 )
Base.Generator{Filter{##18#20,Base.Prod2{Array{Int64,1},Array{Int64,1}}},##17#19}(#17,Filter{##18#20,Base.Prod2{Array{Int64,1},Array{Int64,1}}}(#18,Base.Prod2{Array{Int64,1},Array{Int64,1}}([1,2,3],[4,5,6])))
Another option similar to the one of #DanGetz using also Iterators.jl:
function expensive_fun(a, b)
return (a + b)
end
Then, if the condition is also complicated, it can be defined as a function:
condition(x) = x > 7
And last, filter the results:
>>> using Iterators
>>> result = filter(condition, imap(expensive_fun, l1, l2))
result is an iterable that is only computed when needed (inexpensive) and can be collected collect(result) if required.
The one-line if the filter condition is simple enough would be:
>>> result = filter(x->(x > 7), imap(expensive_fun, l1, l2))
Note: imap works natively for arbitrary number of parameters.
Perhaps something like this:
julia> filter(pair -> pair[1] + pair[2] > 7, [(i, j) for i in l1, j in l2])
3-element Array{Tuple{Any,Any},1}:
(3,5)
(2,6)
(3,6)
although I'd agree it doesn't look like it ought to be the best way...
I'm surprised nobody mentions the ternary operator to implement the conditional:
julia> l3 = [sum_is_large((i,j)) ? (i,j) : nothing for i in l1, j in l2]
3x3 Array{Tuple,2}:
nothing nothing nothing
nothing nothing (2,6)
nothing (3,5) (3,6)
or even just a normal if block within a compound statement, i.e.
[ (if sum_is_large((x,y)); (x,y); end) for x in l1, y in l2 ]
which gives the same result.
I feel this result makes a lot more sense than filter(), because in julia the a in A, b in B construct is interpreted dimensionally, and therefore the output is in fact an "array comprehension" with appropriate dimensionality, which clearly in many cases would be advantageous and presumably the desired behaviour (whether we include a conditional or not).
Whereas filter will always return a vector. Obviously, if you really want a vector result you can always collect the result; or for a conditional list comprehension like the one here, you can simply remove nothing elements from the array by doing l3 = l3[l3 .!= nothing].
Presumably this is still clearer and no less efficient than the filter() approach.
You can use the #vcomp (vector comprehension) macro in VectorizedRoutines.jl to do Python-like comprehensions:
using VectorizedRoutines
Python.#vcomp Int[i^2 for i in 1:10] when i % 2 == 0 # Int[4, 16, 36, 64, 100]