I have this Julia script:
function f(x,y)
x+y
end
f(3, 4)
When I run this in the live terminal (via copy/paste), I get the desired result 7. But if I run the script, the output from the function is suppressed. Why is that?
Julia, unlike Matlab, doesn't automatically print values (the REPL does since that's what it's for: REPL = "read, eval, print loop"). You have to explicitly print the value using print or show, e.g. show(f(3, 4)). In this case, print and show do the same thing, but in general they have somewhat different meanings:
print([io::IO], xs...)
Write to io (or to the default output stream stdout if io is not given) a canonical (un-decorated) text representation. The representation used by print includes minimal formatting and tries to avoid Julia-specific details.
versus
show(x)
Write an informative text representation of a value to the current output stream. New types should overload show(io::IO, x) where the first argument is a stream. The representation used by show generally includes Julia-specific formatting and type information.
Note that there is also the #show macro, which prints the expression that is evaluated followed by its value, like so:
julia> #show f(3, 4);
f(3, 4) = 7
Related
I am new to using Julia and the atom IDE, and I was wondering if it was possible to somehow just press enter and have the computer run 1 line of code spread over multiple lines, and still have it recognize that it is still the same 1 line of code, just like in Rstudio? (I want this for readability purposes only)
what I mean is something like:
println("Hello
world")
and be able to highlight and run this script without receiving an error message.
Yes. The method differs based on what the line of code contains, or specifically, where you want to break the line.
For a string like you've posted in the question, you have to precede the newline with a \ character, to inform Julia that you're using this newline only for readability, and don't want it to be included in the actual string. (Note: I'll be illustrating these with the command-line REPL that has the julia> prompt, but the same principles apply in the Atom/VS Code based IDE setups too).
julia> println("Hello \
world")
Hello world
Outside of strings, if the current line isn't complete, Julia automatically looks for the continuation in the next line. This means that to break a line into multiple ones, you have to leave all but the final line incomplete:
julia> 1 +
2 +
3 *
4
15
julia> DEPOT_PATH |>
first |>
readdir
16-element Vector{String}:
"artifacts"
"bin"
⋮
julia> 1,
2,
3
(1, 2, 3)
In some cases when you don't have a convenient binary operator to leave hanging like the above, you may have to start your line with an opening parenthesis, so that Julia will know that it's a continuous statement until the closing parenthesis is encountered.
You also have multi-line Strings denoted by """:
julia> println("""This
is
a multi-line \
text""")
This
is
a multi-line text
I've written a prime-generating function generatePrimes (full code here) that takes input bound::Int64 and returns a Vector{Int64} of all primes up to bound. After the function definition, I have the following code:
println("Generating primes...")
println("Last prime: ", generatePrimes(10^7)[end])
println("Primes generated.")
which prints, unexpectedly,
Generating primes...
9999991
Primes generated.
This output misses the "Last prime: " segment of the second print statement. The output does work as expected for smaller inputs; any input at least up to 10^6, but somehow fails for 10^7. I've tried several workarounds for this (e.g. assigning the returned value or converting it to a string before calling it in a print statement, combining the print statements, et cetera) and discovered some other weird behaviour: if the "Last prime", is removed from the second print statement, for input 10^7, the last prime doesn't print at all and all I get is a blank line between the first and third print statements. These issues are probably related, and I can't seem to find anything online about why some print statements wouldn't work in Julia.
Thanks so much for any clarification!
Edit: Per DNF's suggestion, following are some reductions to this issue:
Removing the first and last print statements doesn't change anything -- a blank line is always printed in the case I outlined and each of the cases below.
println(generatePrimes(10^7)[end]) # output: empty line
Calling the function and storing the last index in a variable before calling println doesn't change anything either; the cases below work exactly the same either way.
lastPrime::Int = generatePrimes(10^7)[end]
println(lastPrime) # output: empty line
If I call the function in whatever form immediately before a println, an empty line is printed regardless of what's inside the println.
lastPrime::Int = generatePrimes(10^7)[end]
println("This doesn't print") # output: empty line
println("This does print") # output: This does print
If I call the function (or print the pre-generated-and-stored function result) inside a println, anything before the function call (that's also inside the println) isn't printed. The 9999991 and anything else there may be after the function call is printed only if there is something else inside the println before the function call.
# Example 1
println(generatePrimes(10^7)[end]) # output: empty line
# Example 2
println("This first part doesn't print", generatePrimes(10^7)[end]) # output: 9999991
# Example 3
println("This first part doesn't print", generatePrimes(10^7)[end], " prints") # output: 9999991 prints
# Example 4
println(generatePrimes(10^7)[end], "prime doesn't print") # output: prime doesn't print
I could probably list twenty different variations of this same thing, but that probably wouldn't make things any clearer. In every single case version of this issue I've seen so far, the issue only manifests if there's that function call somewhere; println prints large integers just fine. That said, please let me know if anyone feels like they need more info. Thanks so much!
Most likely you are running this code from Atom Juno which recently has some issues with buffering standard output (already reported by others and I also sometimes have this problem).
One thing you can try to do is to flush your standard output
flush(stdout)
Like with any unstable bug restarting Atom Juno also seems to help.
I had the same issue. For me, changing the terminal renderer (File -> Settings -> Packages -> julia-client -> Terminal Options) from webgl to canvas (see pic below) seems to solve the issue.
change terminal renderer
I've also encountered this problem many times. (First time, it was triggered after using the debugger. It is probably unrelated but I have been using Julia+Juno for 2 weeks prior to this issue.)
In my case, the code before the println statement needed to have multiple dictionary assignation (with new keys) in order to trigger the behavior.
I also confirmed that the same code ran in Command Prompt (with same Julia interpreter) prints fine. Any hints about how to further investigate this will be appreciated.
I temporarily solve this issue by printing to stderr, thinking that this stream has more stringent flush mechanism: println(stderr, "hello!")
I am trying to figure out if it is possible, with a sane amount of programming, to create a certain debugging function by using R's metaprogramming features.
Suppose I have a block of code, such that each line uses as all or part of its input the output from thee line before -- the sort of code you might build with pipes (though no pipe is used here).
{
f1(args1) -> out1
f2(out1, args2) -> out2
f3(out2, args3) -> out3
...
fn(out<n-1>, args<n>) -> out<n>
}
Where for example it might be that:
f1 <- function(first_arg, second_arg, ...){my_body_code},
and you call f1 in the block as:
f1(second_arg = 1:5, list(a1 ="A", a2 =1), abc = letters[1:3], fav = foo_foo)
where foo_foo is an object defined in the calling environment of f1.
I would like a function I could wrap around my block that would, for each line of code, create an entry in a list. Each entry would be named (line1, line2) and each line entry would have a sub-entry for each argument and for the function output. the argument entries would consist, first, of the name of the formal, to which the actual argument is matched, second, the expression or name supplied to that argument if there is one (and a placeholder if the argument is just a constant), and third, the value of that expression as if it were immediately forced on entry into the function. (I'd rather have the value as of the moment the promise is first kept, but that seems to me like a much harder problem, and the two values will most often be the same).
All the arguments assigned to the ... (if any) would go in a dots = list() sublist, with entries named if they have names and appropriately labeled (..1, ..2, etc.) if they are assigned positionally. The last element of each line sublist would be the name of the output and its value.
The point of this is to create a fairly complete record of the operation of the block of code. I think of this as analogous to an elaborated version of purrr::safely that is not confined to iteration and keeps a more detailed record of each step, and indeed if a function exits with an error you would want the error message in the list entry as well as as much of the matched arguments as could be had before the error was produced.
It seems to me like this would be very useful in debugging linear code like this. This lets you do things that are difficult using just the RStudio debugger. For instance, it lets you trace code backwards. I may not know that the value in out2 is incorrect until after I have seen some later output. Single-stepping does not keep intermediate values unless you insert a bunch of extra code to do so. In addition, this keeps the information you need to track down matching errors that occur before promises are even created. By the time you see output that results from such errors via single-stepping, the matching information has likely evaporated.
I have actually written code that takes a piped function and eliminates the pipes to put it in this format, just using text manipulation. (Indeed, it was John Mount's "Bizarro pipe" that got me thinking of this). And if I, or we, or you, can figure out how to do this, I would hope to make a serious run on a second version where each function calls the next, supplying it with arguments internally rather than externally -- like a traceback where you get the passed argument values as well as the function name and and formals. Other languages have debugging environments like that (e.g. GDB), and I've been wishing for one for R for at least five years, maybe 10, and this seems like a step toward it.
Just issue the trace shown for each function that you want to trace.
f <- function(x, y) {
z <- x + y
z
}
trace(f, exit = quote(print(returnValue())))
f(1,2)
giving the following which shows the function name, the input and output. (The last 3 is from the function itself.)
Tracing f(1, 2) on exit
[1] 3
[1] 3
I am making a Julia wrapper for a C/C++ library. The C/C++ functions that I am wrapping write to standard output. Is there a way to redirect those messages from the Julia side without commenting/removing the write statements from the C/C++ code?
You can use redirect_stdout for this.
oldstd = stdout
redirect_stdout(somewhere_else)
ccall(:printf, Cint, (Cstring,), "Hello World!")
Base.Libc.flush_cstdio() # it might be necessary to flush C stdio to maintain the correct order of outputs or forcing a flush
redirect_stdout(oldstd) # recover original stdout
You may want to use redirect_stdout(f::Function, stream) method instead. Here, f should be a function taking no parameter (i.e. like () -> do_something(...)). This method automatically recovers the stream to stdout. Using do syntax;
redirect_stdout(somewhere) do
ccall(:printf, Cint, (Cstring,), "Hello World!")
Base.Libc.flush_cstdio() # might be needed
end
I have a script that defines a function, and later intended to call the function but forgot to add the parentheses, like this:
function myfunc()
println("inside myfunc")
end
myfunc # This line is silently ignored. The function isn't invoked and there's no error message.
After a while I did figure out that I was missing the parentheses, but since Julia didn't give me an error, I'm wondering what that line is actually doing? I'm assuming that it must be doing something with the myfunc statement, but I don't know Julia well enough to understand what is happening.
I tried --depwarn=yes but don't see a julia command line switch to increase the warning level or verbosity. Please let me know if one exists.
For background context, the reason this came up is that I'm trying to translate a Bash script to Julia, and there are numerous locations where an argument-less function is defined and then invoked, and in Bash you don't need parentheses after the function name to invoke it.
The script is being run from command line (julia stub.jl) and I'm using Julia 1.0.3 on macOS.
It doesn't silently ignore the function. Calling myfunc in an interactive session will show you what happens: the call returns the function object to the console, and thus call's the show method for Function, showing how many methods are currently defined for that function in your workspace.
julia> function myfunc()
println("inside myfunc")
end
myfunc (generic function with 1 method)
julia> myfunc
myfunc (generic function with 1 method)
Since you're calling this in a script, show is never called, and thus you don't see any result. But it doesn't error, because the syntax is valid.
Thanks to DNF for the helpful comment on it being in a script.
It does nothing.
As in c, an expression has a value: in c the expression _ a=1+1; _ has the value _ 2 _ In c, this just fell out of the parser: they wanted to be able to evaluate expressions like _ a==b _
In Julia, it's the result of designing a language where the code you write is handled as a data object of the language. In Julia, the expression "a=1+1" has the value "a=1+1".
In c, the fact that
a=1+1;
is an acceptable line of code means that, accidentally,
a;
is also an acceptable line of code. The same is true in Julia: the compiler expects to see a data value there: any data value you put may be acceptable: even for example the data value that represents the calculated value returned by a function:
myfunc()
or the value that represents the function object itself:
myfunc
As in c, the fact that data values are everywhere in your code just indicates that the syntax allows data values everywhere in your code and that the compiler does nothing with data values that are everywhere in your code.