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.
Related
I would like to build a Julia application where a user can specify a function using a configuration file (and therefore as a string). The configuration file then needs to be parsed before the function is evaluated in the program.
The problem is that while the function name is known locally, it is not known in the module containing the parser. One solution I have come up with is to pass the local eval function to the parsing function but that does not seem very elegant.
I have tried to come up with a minimal working example here, where instead of parsing a configuration file, the function name is already contained in a string:
module MyFuns
function myfun(a)
return a+2
end
end
module MyUtil
# in a real application, parseconfig would parse the configuration file to extract funstr
function parseconfig(funstr)
return eval(Meta.parse(funstr))
end
function parseconfig(funstr, myeval)
return myeval(Meta.parse(funstr))
end
end
# test 1 -- succeeds
f1 = MyFuns.myfun
println("test1: $(f1(1))")
# test 2 -- succeeds
f2 = MyUtil.parseconfig("MyFuns.myfun", eval)
println("test2: $(f2(1))")
# test 3 -- fails
f3 = MyUtil.parseconfig("MyFuns.myfun")
println("test3: $(f3(1))")
The output is:
test1: 3
test2: 3
ERROR: LoadError: UndefVarError: MyFuns not defined
So, the second approach works but is there a better way to achieve the goal?
Meta.parse() will transform your string to an AST. What MyFuns.myfun refers to depends on the scope provided by the eval() you use.
The issue with your example is that the eval() inside MyUtil will evaluate in the context of that module. If that is the desired behavior, you simply miss using MyFuns inside MyUtil.
But what you really want to do is write a macro. This allows the code to be included when parsing your program, before running it. The macro will have access to a special argument __module__, which is the context where the macro is used. So __module__.eval() will execute an expression in that very scope.
foo = "outside"
module MyMod
foo = "inside"
macro eval(string)
expr = Meta.parse(string)
__module__.eval(expr)
end
end
MyMod.#eval "foo"
# Output is "outside"
See also this explanation on macros:
https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/metaprogramming/index.html#man-macros-1
And for the sake of transforming the answer of #MauricevanLeeuwen into the framework of my question, this code will work:
module MyFuns
function myfun(a)
return a+2
end
end
module MyUtil
macro parseconfig(funstr)
__module__.eval(Meta.parse(funstr))
end
end
f4 = MyUtil.#parseconfig "MyFuns.myfun"
println("test4: $(f4(1))")
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.
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).
This is just a convenience but I think useful. Note that IPython allows a pure quit as does Matlab. Thus it would be reasonble in Julia to allow aliasing.
Thanks for any ideas as to how to do this.
Quitting in Julia
If you are using Julia from the command line then ctrl-d works. But if your intention is to quit by typing a command this is not possible exactly the way you want it because typing quit in the REPL already has a meaning which is return the value associated with quit, which is the function quit.
julia> quit
quit (generic function with 1 method)
julia> typeof(quit)
Function
Also Python
But that's not rare, for example Python has similar behavior.
>>> quit
Use quit() or Ctrl-D (i.e. EOF) to exit
Using a macro
Using \q might be nice in the Julia REPL like in postgres REPL, but unfortunately \ also already has a meaning. However, if you were seeking a simple way to do this, how about a macro
julia> macro q() quit() end
julia> #q
Causes Julia to Quit
If you place the macro definition in a .juliarc.jl file, it will be available every time you run the interpreter.
As waTeim notes, when you type quit into the REPL, it simply shows the function itself… and there's no way to change this behavior. You cannot execute a function without calling it, and there are a limited number of ways to call functions in Julia's syntax.
What you can do, however, is change how the Functions are displayed. This is extremely hacky and is not guaranteed to work, but if you want this behavior badly enough, here's what you can do: hack this behavior into the display method.
julia> function Base.writemime(io::IO, ::MIME"text/plain", f::Function)
f == quit && quit()
if isgeneric(f)
n = length(f.env)
m = n==1 ? "method" : "methods"
print(io, "$(f.env.name) (generic function with $n $m)")
else
show(io, f)
end
end
Warning: Method definition writemime(IO,MIME{symbol("text/plain")},Function) in module Base at replutil.jl:5 overwritten in module Main at none:2.
writemime (generic function with 34 methods)
julia> print # other functions still display normally
print (generic function with 22 methods)
julia> quit # but when quit is displayed, it actually quits!
$
Unfortunately there's no type more specific than ::Function, so you must completely overwrite the writemime(::IO,::MIME"text/plain",::Function) definition, copying its implementation.
Also note that this is pretty unexpected and somewhat dangerous. Some library may actually end up trying to display the function quit… causing you to lose your work from that session.
Related to Quitting in Julia
I was searching for something simple. This question hasn't been updated since 2017, as I try to learn Julia now, and spend some time googling for something simple and similar to python. Here, what I found:
You can use:
exit()
Note
I use julia 1.53
The following code in Julia:
function foo(a::Vector{AbstractString})
end
foo(["a"])
gives the following error:
ERROR: MethodError: no method matching foo(::Array{String,1})
Closest candidates are:
foo(::Array{AbstractString,1}) at REPL[77]:2
Even though the following code runs, as expected:
function foo(a::Vector{String})
end
foo(["a"])
And further, AbstractString generally matches String as in:
function foo(::AbstractString)
end
foo("a")
How can I call a function with a Vector{AbstractString} parameter if I have String elements?
You need to write the function signature like this:
function foo{S<:AbstractString}(a::Vector{S})
# do stuff
end
On Julia 0.6 and newer, it's also possible to write instead
function foo(a::Vector{<:AbstractString})
# do stuff
end
This is a consequence of parametric type invariance in Julia. See the chapter on types in the manual for more details.