Reading a book on Julia I found the following code example:
The author creates a type
type Student
name::String
end
creates an instance of this type
antony = Student("Antony Miller")
and then tests the type of antony in two different ways
isa(antony, Student)
true
antony isa Student
true
This is an awesome way of using syntax to make code readable. However, how is the function isa() enabled to be used as an infix operator, here? I would have guessed that the following is possible...
antony |> isa(Student)
true
...as the pipe (|>) uses the object to the left as the first argument in the function to the right. But why is it possible to omit the pipe in the example further up? And can I use the same behavior in my own functions as well to make the code more readable (I would really like to)?
As explained in this answer: User-defined infix operator, Julia has a fixed set of infix operators. You can overload the the operators, but you are not allowed to define new infix operators.
isa is in this predefined set of infix operators.
You can, however, simulate infix operators with macros (also pointed out in the linked thread). You can see an example in the DiffEq docs.
It's possible to make the piping semantics you asked for work. Suppose we have some function of two arguments
rel_diff(x, y) = (x - y)/(x + y)
We can define
rel_diff(y) = x -> rel_diff(x, y)
so that
julia> 1 |> rel_diff(2)
-0.3333333333333333
I don't think this is very aesthetically pleasing, but you might.
Another alternative would be this trick:
struct Infixed{X, F <: Function}
x::X
f::F
end
(|)(args...) = Base.:(|)(args...)
(|)(x, f::Function) = Infixed(x, f)
(|)(xf::Infixed, y) = xf.f(xf.x, y)
and now we can do
julia> 1 |rel_diff| 2
-0.3333333333333333
Note that this relies on shadowing the base definition of | so that we don't commit type piracy. This won't work in the global scope REPL if you've already used |, but it'll work if you make a new local scope like with let or inside a function body.
Related
In Julia, how do I create custom types MyOrderedDictA and MyOrderedDictB such that:
Each has all the functionality of an OrderdDict, and can be passed to any function that accepts AbstractDicts
They are distinct from each other, so that I can take advantage of multiple dispatch.
I suspect\hope this is straightforward, but haven’t been able to figure it out.
Basically, what you have to do is to define your type MyOrderedDictA, wrapping a regular OrderedDict, and forward all functions that one can apply to an OrderedDict to this wrapped dict.
Unfortunately, the AbstractDict interface is (to my knowledge) currently not documented (cf. AbstractArray). You could look at their definition and check which functions are defined for them. Alternatively, there is the more practical approach to just use your MyOrderedDictA and whenever you get an error message, because a function is not defined, you forward this function "on-the-fly".
In any case, using the macro #forward from Lazy.jl you can do something along the lines of the following.
using Lazy
struct MyOrderedDictA{T,S} <: AbstractDict{T,S}
dict::OrderedDict{T,S}
end
MyOrderedDictA{T,S}(args...; kwargs...) where {T,S} = new{T,S}(OrderedDict{T,S}(args...; kwargs...))
function MyOrderedDictA(args...; kwargs...)
d = OrderedDict(args...; kwargs...)
MyOrderedDictA{keytype(d),valtype(d)}(d)
end
#forward MyOrderedDictA.dict (Base.length, Base.iterate, Base.getindex, Base.setindex!)
d = MyOrderedDictA(2=>1, 1=>2)
Others will be better placed to answer this, but a quick take:
For this you will need to look at the OrderedDict implementation, and specifically which methods are defined for OrderedDicts. If you want to be able to pass it to methods accepting AbstractDicts you need to subtype it like struct MyDictA{T, S} <: AbstractDict{T, S}
If you define two structs they will automatically be discting from each other!? (I might be misunderstanding the question here)
I'm writing a function that I would find easier to write and read if it could define another function differently depending on input or runtime values of variables (and then use that function). The following illustrates the idea (even if defining a function inside a function is of no advantage in this simple example):
julia> function f(option::Bool)
if option
g() = println("option true")
g()
else
g() = println("option false")
g()
end
end;
WARNING: Method definition g() in module Main at REPL[1]:3 overwritten at REPL[1]:6.
julia> f(true)
option false
julia> f(false)
ERROR: UndefVarError: g not defined
in f(::Bool) at .\REPL[1]:7
Using the full function ... end syntax for g does not help either.
The question is: am I doing something wrong to get that warning and that unintended behavior, or Julia does not allow this for a reason? And if it can be done, how?
N.B. For my present need, I can just define two different functions, g1 and g2, and it seems to work; but what if there were many cases of g for just one task concept? I thought that a function, being a first-class object, could be manipulated freely: assigned to a variable, defined in a way or another depending on conditions, overwritten, etc.
P.S. I know I can compose a String and then parse-eval it, but that's an ugly solution.
You want to use anonymous functions. This is a known issue (this other issue also shows your problem).
function f(option::Bool)
if option
g = () -> println("option true")
else
g = () -> println("option false")
end
g
end
In v0.5 there's no performance difference between anonymous and generic functions, so there's no reason to not use anonymous functions. Note that there's also a sytnax for extended anonymous functions:
f = function (x)
x
end
and you can add dispatches via call overloading:
(T::typeof(f))(x,y) = x+y
so there's no reason to not use an anonymous function here.
This is probably a newbie question... but is it possible to show the definition of a (user defined) function? While debugging/optimizing it is convenient to quickly see how a certain function was programmed.
Thanks in advance.
You can use the #edit macro, which is supposed to take you to the definition of a method, similarly to how the #which macro which shows the file and line # where that particular method was defined, for example:
julia> #which push!(CDFBuf(),"foo")
push!{T<:CDF.CDFBuf}(buff::T, x) at /d/base/DA/DA.jl:105
julia> #which search("foobar","foo")
search(s::AbstractString, t::AbstractString) at strings/search.jl:146
Note that methods that are part of Julia will show a path relative to the julia source directory "base".
While this is not an automatic feature available with Julia in general (as pointed out by Stefan), if you add docstrings when you define your initial function, you can always use the help?> prompt to query this docstring. For example
julia> """mytestfunction(a::Int, b)""" function mytestfunction(a::Int, b)
return true
This attaches the docstring "mytestfunction(a::Int, b)" to the function mytestfunction(a::Int, b). Once this is defined, you can then use the Julia help prompt (by typing ? at the REPL), to query this documentation.
help?> mytestfunction
mytestfunction(a::Int, b)
In Julia, is there any way to get the name of a passed to a function?
x = 10
function myfunc(a)
# do something here
end
assert(myfunc(x) == "x")
Do I need to use macros or is there a native method that provides introspection?
You can grab the variable name with a macro:
julia> macro mymacro(arg)
string(arg)
end
julia> #mymacro(x)
"x"
julia> #assert(#mymacro(x) == "x")
but as others have said, I'm not sure why you'd need that.
Macros operate on the AST (code tree) during compile time, and the x is passed into the macro as the Symbol :x. You can turn a Symbol into a string and vice versa. Macros replace code with code, so the #mymacro(x) is simply pulled out and replaced with string(:x).
Ok, contradicting myself: technically this is possible in a very hacky way, under one (fairly limiting) condition: the function name must have only one method signature. The idea is very similar the answers to such questions for Python. Before the demo, I must emphasize that these are internal compiler details and are subject to change. Briefly:
julia> function foo(x)
bt = backtrace()
fobj = eval(current_module(), symbol(Profile.lookup(bt[3]).func))
Base.arg_decl_parts(fobj.env.defs)[2][1][1]
end
foo (generic function with 1 method)
julia> foo(1)
"x"
Let me re-emphasize that this is a bad idea, and should not be used for anything! (well, except for backtrace display). This is basically "stupid compiler tricks", but I'm showing it because it can be kind of educational to play with these objects, and the explanation does lead to a more useful answer to the clarifying comment by #ejang.
Explanation:
bt = backtrace() generates a ... backtrace ... from the current position. bt is an array of pointers, where each pointer is the address of a frame in the current call stack.
Profile.lookup(bt[3]) returns a LineInfo object with the function name (and several other details about each frame). Note that bt[1] and bt[2] are in the backtrace-generation function itself, so we need to go further up the stack to get the caller.
Profile.lookup(...).func returns the function name (the symbol :foo)
eval(current_module(), Profile.lookup(...)) returns the function object associated with the name :foo in the current_module(). If we modify the definition of function foo to return fobj, then note the equivalence to the foo object in the REPL:
julia> function foo(x)
bt = backtrace()
fobj = eval(current_module(), symbol(Profile.lookup(bt[3]).func))
end
foo (generic function with 1 method)
julia> foo(1) == foo
true
fobj.env.defs returns the first Method entry from the MethodTable for foo/fobj
Base.decl_arg_parts is a helper function (defined in methodshow.jl) that extracts argument information from a given Method.
the rest of the indexing drills down to the name of the argument.
Regarding the restriction that the function have only one method signature, the reason is that multiple signatures will all be listed (see defs.next) in the MethodTable. As far as I know there is no currently exposed interface to get the specific method associated with a given frame address. (as an exercise for the advanced reader: one way to do this would be to modify the address lookup functionality in jl_getFunctionInfo to also return the mangled function name, which could then be re-associated with the specific method invocation; however, I don't think we currently store a reverse mapping from mangled name -> Method).
Note also that (1) backtraces are slow (2) there is no notion of "function-local" eval in Julia, so even if one has the variable name, I believe it would be impossible to actually access the variable (and the compiler may completely elide local variables, unused or otherwise, put them in a register, etc.)
As for the IDE-style introspection use mentioned in the comments: foo.env.defs as shown above is one place to start for "object introspection". From the debugging side, Gallium.jl can inspect DWARF local variable info in a given frame. Finally, JuliaParser.jl is a pure-Julia implementation of the Julia parser that is actively used in several IDEs to introspect code blocks at a high level.
Another method is to use the function's vinfo. Here is an example:
function test(argx::Int64)
vinfo = code_lowered(test,(Int64,))
string(vinfo[1].args[1][1])
end
test (generic function with 1 method)
julia> test(10)
"argx"
The above depends on knowing the signature of the function, but this is a non-issue if it is coded within the function itself (otherwise some macro magic could be needed).
The manual states:
The operator ‘<-’ can be used anywhere,
whereas the operator ‘=’ is only allowed at the top level (e.g.,
in the complete expression typed at the command prompt) or as one
of the subexpressions in a braced list of expressions.
The question here mention the difference when used in the function call. But in the function definition, it seems to work normally:
a = function ()
{
b = 2
x <- 3
y <<- 4
}
a()
# (b and x are undefined here)
So why the manual mentions that the operator ‘=’ is only allowed at the top level??
There is nothing about it in the language definition (there is no = operator listed, what a shame!)
The text you quote says at the top level OR in a braced list of subexpressions. You are using it in a braced list of subexpressions. Which is allowed.
You have to go to great lengths to find an expression which is neither toplevel nor within braces. Here is one. You sometimes want to wrap an assignment inside a try block: try( x <- f() ) is fine, but try( x = f(x) ) is not -- you need to either change the assignment operator or add braces.
Expressions not at the top level include usage in control structures like if. For example, the following programming error is illegal.
> if(x = 0) 1 else x
Error: syntax error
As mentioned here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/4831793/210673
Also see http://developer.r-project.org/equalAssign.html
Other than some examples such as system.time as others have shown where <- and = have different results, the main difference is more philisophical. Larry Wall, the creater of Perl, said something along the lines of "similar things should look similar, different things should look different", I have found it interesting in different languages to see what things are considered "similar" and which are considered "different". Now for R assignment let's compare 2 commands:
myfun( a <- 1:10 )
myfun( a = 1:10 )
Some would argue that in both cases we are assigning 1:10 to a so what we are doing is similar.
The other argument is that in the first call we are assigning to a variable a that is in the same environment from which myfun is being called and in the second call we are assigning to a variable a that is in the environment created when the function is called and is local to the function and those two a variables are different.
So which to use depends on whether you consider the assignments "similar" or "different".
Personally, I prefer <-, but I don't think it is worth fighting a holy war over.