I can unpack a tuple. I'm trying to write a function (or macro) that would unpack a subset of these from an instance of the type-constructor Parameters(). That is, I know how to do:
a,b,c = unpack(p::Parameters)
But I would like to do something like this:
b,c = unpack(p::Parameters, b,c)
or maybe even lazier:
unpack(p::Parameters, b, c)
This is to avoid writing things like:
function unpack_all_oldstyle(p::Parameters)
a=p.a; b=p.b; c=p.c; ... z=p.z;
return a,b,c,...,z
end
There's something wrong with my approach, but hopefully there is a fix.
In case it wasn't clear from the wording of my question, I'm a total ignoramus. I read about unpacking the ellipsis here: how-to-pass-tuple-as-function-arguments
"module UP tests Unpacking Parameters"
module UP
struct Parameters
a::Int64
b::Int64
c::Int64
end
"this method sets default parameters and returns a tuple of default values"
function Parameters(;
a::Int64 = 3,
b::Int64 = 11,
c::Int64 = 101
)
Parameters(a, b, c)
end
"this function unpacks all parameters"
function unpack_all(p::Parameters)
return p.a, p.b, p.c
end
"this function tests the unpacking function: in the body of the function one can now refer to a rather than p.a : worth the effort if you have dozens of parameters and complicated expressions to compute, e.g. type (-b+sqrt(b^2-4*a*c))/2/a instead of (-p.b+sqrt(p.b^2-4*p.a *p.c))/2/p.a"
function unpack_all_test(p::Parameters)
a, b, c = unpack_all(p)
return a, b, c
end
"""
This function is intended to unpack selected parameters. The first, unnamed argument is the constructor for all parameters. The second argument is a tuple of selected parameters.
"""
function unpack_selected(p::Parameters; x...)
return p.x
end
function unpack_selected_test(p::Parameters; x...)
x = unpack_selected(p, x)
return x
end
export Parameters, unpack_all, unpack_all_test, unpack_selected, unpack_selected_test
end
p = UP.Parameters() # make an instance
UP.unpack_all_test(p)
## (3,11,101) ## Test successful
UP.unpack_selected_test(p, 12)
## 12 ## intended outcome
UP.unpack_selected_test(p, b)
## 11 ## intended outcome
UP.unpack_selected_test(p, c, b, a)
## (101,11,3) ## intended outcome
There already exists one: Parameters.jl.
julia> using Parameters
julia> struct Params
a::Int64
b::Int64
c::Int64
end
julia> #unpack a, c = Params(1,2,3)
Params(1,2,3)
julia> a,c
(1,3)
julia> #with_kw struct Params
a::Int64 = 3
b::Int64 = 11
c::Int64 = 101
end
julia> #unpack c,b,a = Params()
Params
a: Int64 3
b: Int64 11
c: Int64 101
julia> c,b,a
(101,11,3)
BTW, you can fix your unpack_selected by:
unpack_selected(p::Parameters, fields...) = map(x->getfield(p, x), fields).
# note that, the selected field names should be Symbol here
julia> unpack_selected(p, :b)
(11,)
julia> unpack_selected(p, :c, :b, :a)
(101,11,3)
Related
What is the most idiomatic way to achieve function currying?
Eg. in Haskell:
times a b = a * b
-- This can then be used uncurried:
times 2 3 -- Result is 6
-- But there is also auto-currying:
(times 2) 3 -- This works too
In Julia, some built-ins support this:
<(8, 7) # Result is false
<(8)(7) # Same
7 |> <(8) # Same
However, user-defined functions don't automatically have this functionality:
times(a, b) = a * b
times(2, 3) # Result is 6
3 |> times(2) # MethodError: no method matching times(::Int64)
I can manually define a one-argument version and then it works:
times(a) = b -> a * b
But my question is, is there a better way?
why not use curry.jl
times(a, b) = a * b
times_curry = curry(times)
times_curry(5)(2) ---> gives 10
This would be pretty tricky (impossible?) to solve in Julia without a macro, as multiple dispatch means you won't know which function you'll ultimately end up dispatching to until you see all of the arguments. I think the simplest way to implement currying is just with a struct like this:
julia> struct Curry
func::Function
args::Tuple
Curry(func, args...) = new(func, args)
end
julia> (curry::Curry)(x, args...) = Curry(curry.func, curry.args..., x, args...)
julia> (curry::Curry)() = curry.func(curry.args...)
julia> Curry(<)
Curry(<, ())
julia> Curry(<)(2)()
(::Base.Fix2{typeof(<), Int64}) (generic function with 1 method)
julia> Curry(<)(2)(3)()
true
julia> Curry(<, 2)
Curry(<, (2,))
julia> Curry(<, 2, 3)()
true
Basically, calling the Curry with at least one argument creates a new Curry with the new arguments, and calling it with 0 arguments “executes” the whole thing.
The code at the end of this post constructs a function which is bound to the variables of a given dictionary. Furthermore, the function is not bound to the actual name of the dictionary (as I use the Ref() statement).
An example:
julia> D = Dict(:x => 4, :y => 5)
julia> f= #mymacro4(x+2y, D)
julia> f()
14
julia> DD = D
julia> D = nothing
julia> f()
14
julia> DD[:x] = 12
julia> f()
22
Now I want to be able to construct exactly the same function when I only have access to the expression expr = :(x+2y).
How do I do this? I tried several things, but was not able to find a solution.
julia> f = #mymacro4(:(x+2y), D)
julia> f() ### the function evaluation should also yield 14. But it yields:
:(DR.x[:x] + 2 * DR.x[:y])
(I actually want to use it within another macro in which the dictionary is automatically created. I want to store this dictionary and the function within a struct, such that I'm able to call this function at a later point in time and manipulate the objects in the dictionary. If necessary, I may post the complete example and explain the complete problem.)
_freevars2(literal) = literal
function _freevars2(s::Symbol)
try
if typeof(eval(s)) <: Function
return s
else
return Meta.parse("DR.x[:$s]")
end
catch
return Meta.parse("DR.x[:$s]")
end
end
function _freevars2(expr::Expr)
for (it, s) in enumerate(expr.args)
expr.args[it] = _freevars2(s)
end
return expr
end
macro mymacro4(expr, D)
expr2 = _freevars2(expr)
quote
let DR = Ref($(esc(D)))
function mysym()
$expr2
end
end
end
end
I have issue after calling my macro:
#introspectable square(x) = x * x
Then when calling
square(3)
i should be able to get 9, cause the function call has been specialized to execute an attribute of the structure which is Julia code, however when I enter the macro, the code seems to be directly evaluated.
What i have tried:
struct IntrospectableFunction
name
parameters
native_function
end
(f::IntrospectableFunction)(x) = f.native_function(x)
macro introspectable(expr)
name = expr.args[1].args[1]
parameters = tuple(expr.args[1].args[2:end]...)
body = expr.args[2].args[2]
:( global $name = IntrospectableFunction( :( name ), $parameters, :( body ) ))
end
#introspectable square(x) = x * x
square(3)
The answer should be 9 , however i get "Object of type symbol are not callable ". However if i replace :( body ) with x -> x * x i get the desired result, my objective is generalizing the macro-call.
I usually find it easier to work with expressions in macros (it is not the shortest way to write things, but, from my experience, it is much easier to control what gets generated).
Therefore I would rewrite your code as:
macro introspectable(expr)
name = expr.args[1].args[1]
parameters = expr.args[1].args[2:end]
anon = Expr(Symbol("->"), Expr(:tuple, parameters...), expr.args[2].args[2])
constr = Expr(:call, :IntrospectableFunction, QuoteNode(name), Tuple(parameters), anon)
esc(Expr(:global, Expr(Symbol("="), name, constr)))
end
Now, as you said you wanted generality I would define your functor like this:
(f::IntrospectableFunction)(x...) = f.native_function(x...)
(in this way you allow multiple positional arguments to be passed).
Now let us test our definitions:
julia> #introspectable square(x) = x * x
IntrospectableFunction(:square, (:x,), getfield(Main, Symbol("##3#4"))())
julia> square(3)
9
julia> #macroexpand #introspectable square(x) = x * x
:(global square = IntrospectableFunction(:square, (:x,), ((x,)->x * x)))
julia> #introspectable toarray(x,y) = [x,y]
IntrospectableFunction(:toarray, (:x, :y), getfield(Main, Symbol("##5#6"))())
julia> toarray("a", 10)
2-element Array{Any,1}:
"a"
10
julia> #macroexpand #introspectable toarray(x,y) = [x,y]
:(global toarray = IntrospectableFunction(:toarray, (:x, :y), ((x, y)->[x, y])))
julia> function localscopetest()
#introspectable globalfun(x...) = x
end
localscopetest (generic function with 1 method)
julia> localscopetest()
IntrospectableFunction(:globalfun, (:(x...),), getfield(Main, Symbol("##9#10"))())
julia> globalfun(1,2,3,4,5)
(1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
julia> function f()
v = 100
#introspectable localbinding(x) = (v, x)
end
f (generic function with 1 method)
julia> f()
IntrospectableFunction(:localbinding, (:x,), getfield(Main, Symbol("##11#12")){Int64}(100))
julia> localbinding("x")
(100, "x")
(note that it is useful to use #macroexpand to make sure our macro works as expected)
EDIT - how to handle a minimal multiple dispatch
I am writing a non-macro example because it is related to the data structure:
Use e.g. such a definition:
struct IntrospectableFunction
name::Symbol
method_array::Vector{Pair{Type{<:Tuple}, Function}}
end
function (f::IntrospectableFunction)(x...)
for m in f.method_array
if typeof(x) <: first(m)
return last(m)(x...)
end
end
error("signature not found")
end
and now you can write:
julia> square = IntrospectableFunction(:square, [Tuple{Any}=>x->x*x,Tuple{Any,Any}=>(x,y)->x*y])
IntrospectableFunction(:square, Pair{DataType,Function}[Tuple{Any}=>##9#11(), Tuple{Any,Any}=>##10#12()])
julia> square(3)
9
julia> square(2,3)
6
Keep in mind that the approach I present is not perfect and universal - it just serves to give a very simple example how you could do it.
How could I create variables from keys and values of a dictionary? Is the following extract (like PHP) possible?
julia> d = Dict(
"key1" =>111,
"key2" =>222,
"key3" =>333
);
julia> extract(d)
julia> key1, key2, key3
(111,222,333)
k = collect(keys(d))
v = collect(values(d))
Both keys and values return iterators.
collect then produces an array.
But note that you often do not need to do this and can just iterate through the dictionary using
for (k, v) in d
It is possible to introduce new variables into the global scope with eval:
julia> x = 1
1
julia> function testeval()
eval(:(x = 5))
return x
end
testeval (generic function with 1 method)
julia> testeval()
5
julia> x # the global x has changed!
5
An extract function could look like this:
julia> function extract(d)
expr = quote end
for (k, v) in d
push!(expr.args, :($(Symbol(k)) = $v))
end
eval(expr)
return
end
julia> extract(d)
julia> key1, key2, key3
(111,222,333)
Note that every module has its own global scope. Therefore, this will introduce the variables into the scope of the module where the extract function is defined, i.e., into the Main module if defined at the REPL as in the example.
You should be very careful when using eval and first consider other approaches, e.g, the ones mentioned by David P. Sanders and Dan Getz.
To declare a new composite type, we use the following syntax
type foo
a::Int64
b::Int64
end
and instantiate like such
x = foo(1,3)
Is there some way to have type attributes that always just a function of other attributes? For example, is there some way to do the following (which is invalid syntax)...
type foo
a::Int64
b::Int64
c = a + b
end
My current workaround is just to define a function which calculates c and returns an instance of the type, like so...
type foo
a::Int64
b::Int64
c::Int64
end
function foo_maker(a, b)
return foo(a, b, a+b)
end
Is there a more elegant solution? Possibly one that can be contained within the type definition?
EDIT - 3/7/14
With Cristóvão's suggestion in mind, I've ended up declaring constructors like the following to allow for keyword args and attributes calculated upon instantiation
# Type with optional keyword argument structure
type LargeType
# Declare all the attributes in order up top
q::Int64
w::Int64
e::Int64
r::Int64
t::Int64
y::Int64
a::Number
b::Number
c::Number
# Declare Longer constructor with stuff going on in the body
LargeType(;q=1,w=1,e=1,r=1,t=1,y=1) = begin
# Large Constructor Example
a = round(r^t - log(pi))
b = a % t
c = a*b
# Return new instance with correctly ordered arguments
return new(q,w,e,r,t,y,a,b,c)
end
end
println(LargeType(r=2,t=5))
Try this:
julia> type foo
a::Int64
b::Int64
c::Int64
foo(a::Int64, b::Int64) = new(a, b, a+b)
end
julia> foo(1,2)
foo(1,2,3)
julia> foo(4,5,6)
no method foo(Int64, Int64, Int64)
However, that won't prevent one from manually changing a, b or c and rendering c inconsistent. To prevent that, if it presents no other problems, you can make foo immutable:
julia> immutable foo
...
There isn't any way to do this currently, but there might be in the future:
https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/1974