I have read In R, how to get an object's name after it is sent to a function? and have a similar question. The above gets the object name after it is defined. What I want is to get the name while it is being defined in a function i.e. print the object name while the function is being called.
The thing that is different is that I want to find the name of the object before it is defined in the local environment.
I want my function foo to print the object name in the output as well. So my function foo would look something like this.
foo<-function(x) {
print('name of object that is calling foo')
return(x)
}
This will return the character string "name of object that is calling foo" and 1. What I want is for the function to print "object" and 1 when I call object = foo(1). I know that match.call() returns the function and arguments but I cant find a function that will return the object name that is currently calling the function.
A plausible workaround that I can think of would go through the history and print the first object that matches the match.call() but I hope that theres a simpler way to do this.
Feel free to ask me for any clarification.
I've created my immutable Tensor_field and a function nabla that acts on the tensor (that is nabla(a::Tensor_field) = do something.
I've added a method to function dot for the tensor: Base.dot(a::Tensor_field, b::Tensor_field) = do something....
Now I want to define a new behavior to function dot with nabla as an argument.
Something like Base.dot(nabla::function, a::Tensor_field) = do something different.
I know in Julia we are able to pass functions as arguments to other functions, but I couldn't find in the docs how to define a method for a "functional" argument.
If I type typeof(nabla) the output is My_Module_Name.#nabla, not a real DataType...
If you want it to work for any function, you can do
Base.dot(f::Function, a::Tensor_field) = do something different
If you only want it to work for the nabla function already defined, you can take advantage of what you have discovered, namely that each function has a unique type:
Base.dot(f::typeof(nabla), a::Tensor_field) = do something different
This will match only the function called nabla, which will now be called f inside the function dot.
Note that you can write ∇ as \nabla<TAB> and use it in your code instead of the word nabla. If your tensor field is called e.g. 𝐯 (written as \mbfv<TAB>), you can then write ∇⋅𝐯 in your Julia code! (The centered dot is written as \cdot<TAB>, and is an alias for the dot function.)
I have a function:
func <- function (x)
{
arguments <- match.call()
return(arguments)
}
1) If I call my function with specifying argument in the call:
func("value")
I get:
func(x = "value")
2) If I call my function by passing a variable:
my_variable <-"value"
func(my_variable)
I get:
func(x = my_variable)
Why is the first and the second result different?
Can I somehow get in the second call "func(x = "value")"?
I'm thinking my problem is that the Environment inside a function simply doesn't contain values if they were passed by variables. The Environment contains only names of variables for further lookup. Is there a way to follow such reference and get value from inside a function?
In R, when you pass my_variable as formal argument x into a function, the value of my_variable will only be retrieved when the function tries to read x (if it does not use x, my_variable will not be read at all). The same applies when you pass more complicated arguments, such as func(x = compute_my_variable()) -- the call to compute_my_variable will take place when func tries to read x (this is referred to as lazy evaluation).
Given lazy evaluation, what you are trying to do is not well defined because of side effects - in which order would you like to evaluate the arguments? Which arguments would you like to evaluate at all? (note a function can just take an expression for its argument using substitute, but not evaluate it). As a side effect, compute_my_variable could modify something that would impact the result of another argument of func. This can happen even when you only passed variables and constants as arguments (function func could modify some of the variables that will be later read, or even reading a variable such as my_variable could trigger code that would modify some of the variables that will be read later, e.g. with active bindings or delayed assignment).
So, if all you want to do is to log how a function was called, you can use sys.call (or match.call but that indeed expands argument names, etc). If you wanted a more complete stacktrace, you can use e.g. traceback(1).
If for some reason you really wanted values of all arguments, say as if they were all read in the order of match.call, which is the order in which they are declared, you can do it using eval (returns them as list):
lapply(as.list(match.call())[-1], eval)
can't you simply
return paste('func(x =', x, ')')
Folks -
I'm going to keep my code here brief, as I think to those more familiar with R, it will be obvious. I am trying to use a function (not my own) that requires I feed it a list of named lists of parameters. I am having trouble naming the lists via a function I wrote to create each list element. Here is my function:
# for invoking grts
stratumdesign<- function(ns, points, oversamp) {
stratumname<-as.character(ns)
print("from function")
print(stratumname)
designlist<-list(ns=c(panel=points, seltype="Equal", over=oversamp))
return(designlist)
}
.. I have tried both having the function call have ns be the integer it is in the originating code, or be passed as a character. Neither work. What I'm illustrating here to myself w/in the function is that ns gets properly passed to the function, but the resulting list returned is always named "$ns" when I want it to be the value passed AS ns! What on Earth am I doing wrong, here?
Since this deserves an actual answer, not just a comment...
Try something more like this:
stratumdesign<- function(ns, points, oversamp) {
print("from function")
print(stratumname)
designlist<-list(c(panel=points, seltype="Equal", over=oversamp))
names(designlist) <- as.character(ns)
return(designlist)
}
I've read through previous topics on closures on stackflow and other sources and one thing is still confusing me. From what I've been able to piece together technically a closure is simply the set of data containing the code of a function and the value of bound variables in that function.
In other words technically the following C function should be a closure from my understanding:
int count()
{
static int x = 0;
return x++;
}
Yet everything I read seems to imply closures must somehow involve passing functions as first class objects. In addition it usually seems to be implied that closures are not part of procedural programming. Is this a case of a solution being overly associated with the problem it solves or am I misunderstanding the exact definition?
No, that's not a closure. Your example is simply a function that returns the result of incrementing a static variable.
Here's how a closure would work:
function makeCounter( int x )
{
return int counter() {
return x++;
}
}
c = makeCounter( 3 );
printf( "%d" c() ); => 4
printf( "%d" c() ); => 5
d = makeCounter( 0 );
printf( "%d" d() ); => 1
printf( "%d" c() ); => 6
In other words, different invocations of makeCounter() produce different functions with their own binding of variables in their lexical environment that they have "closed over".
Edit: I think examples like this make closures easier to understand than definitions, but if you want a definition I'd say, "A closure is a combination of a function and an environment. The environment contains the variables that are defined in the function as well as those that are visible to the function when it was created. These variables must remain available to the function as long as the function exists."
For the exact definition, I suggest looking at its Wikipedia entry. It's especially good. I just want to clarify it with an example.
Assume this C# code snippet (that's supposed to perform an AND search in a list):
List<string> list = new List<string> { "hello world", "goodbye world" };
IEnumerable<string> filteredList = list;
var keywords = new [] { "hello", "world" };
foreach (var keyword in keywords)
filteredList = filteredList.Where(item => item.Contains(keyword));
foreach (var s in filteredList) // closure is called here
Console.WriteLine(s);
It's a common pitfall in C# to do something like that. If you look at the lambda expression inside Where, you'll see that it defines a function that it's behavior depends on the value of a variable at its definition site. It's like passing a variable itself to the function, rather than the value of that variable. Effectively, when this closure is called, it retrieves the value of keyword variable at that time. The result of this sample is very interesting. It prints out both "hello world" and "goodbye world", which is not what we wanted. What happened? As I said above, the function we declared with the lambda expression is a closure over keyword variable so this is what happens:
filteredList = filteredList.Where(item => item.Contains(keyword))
.Where(item => item.Contains(keyword));
and at the time of closure execution, keyword has the value "world," so we're basically filtering the list a couple times with the same keyword. The solution is:
foreach (var keyword in keywords) {
var temporaryVariable = keyword;
filteredList = filteredList.Where(item => item.Contains(temporaryVariable));
}
Since temporaryVariable is scoped to the body of the foreach loop, in every iteration, it is a different variable. In effect, each closure will bind to a distinct variable (those are different instances of temporaryVariable at each iteration). This time, it'll give the correct results ("hello world"):
filteredList = filteredList.Where(item => item.Contains(temporaryVariable_1))
.Where(item => item.Contains(temporaryVariable_2));
in which temporaryVariable_1 has the value of "hello" and temporaryVariable_2 has the value "world" at the time of closure execution.
Note that the closures have caused an extension to the lifetime of variables (their life were supposed to end after each iteration of the loop). This is also an important side effect of closures.
From what I understand a closure also has to have access to the variables in the calling context. Closures are usually associated with functional programming. Languages can have elements from different types of programming perspectives, functional, procedural, imperative, declarative, etc. They get their name from being closed over a specified context. They may also have lexical binding in that they can reference the specified context with the same names that are used in that context. Your example has no reference to any other context but a global static one.
From Wikipedia
A closure closes over the free variables (variables which are not local variables)
A closure is an implementation technique for representing procedures/functions with local state. One way to implement closures is described in SICP. I will present the gist of it, anyway.
All expressions, including functions are evaluated in an environement, An environment is a sequence of frames. A frame maps variable names to values. Each frame also has a
pointer to it's enclosing environment. A function is evaluated in a new environment with a frame containing bindings for it's arguments. Now let us look at the following interesting scenario. Imagine that we have a function called accumulator, which when evaluated, will return another function:
// This is some C like language that has first class functions and closures.
function accumulator(counter) {
return (function() { return ++counter; });
}
What will happen when we evaluate the following line?
accum1 = accumulator(0);
First a new environment is created and an integer object (for counter) is bound to 0 in it's first frame. The returned value, which is a new function, is bound in the global environment. Usually the new environment will be garbage collected once the function
evaluation is over. Here that will not happen. accum1 is holding a reference to it, as it needs access to the variable counter. When accum1 is called, it will increment the value of counter in the referenced environment. Now we can call accum1 a function with local state or a closure.
I have described a few practical uses of closures at my blog
http://vijaymathew.wordpress.com. (See the posts "Dangerous designs" and "On Message-Passing").
There's a lot of answers already, but I'll add another one anyone...
Closures aren't unique to functional languages. They occur in Pascal (and family), for instance, which has nested procedures. Standard C doesn't have them (yet), but IIRC there is a GCC extension.
The basic issue is that a nested procedure may refer to variables defined in it's parent. Furthermore, the parent may return a reference to the nested procedure to its caller.
The nested procedure still refers to variables that were local to the parent - specifically to the values those variables had when the line making the function-reference was executed - even though those variables no longer exist as the parent has exited.
The issue even occurs if the procedure is never returned from the parent - different references to the nested procedure constructed at different times may be using different past values of the same variables.
The resolution to this is that when the nested function is referenced, it is packaged up in a "closure" containing the variable values it needs for later.
A Python lambda is a simple functional-style example...
def parent () :
a = "hello"
return (lamda : a)
funcref = parent ()
print funcref ()
My Pythons a bit rusty, but I think that's right. The point is that the nested function (the lambda) is still referring to the value of the local variable a even though parent has exited when it is called. The function needs somewhere to preserve that value until it's needed, and that place is called a closure.
A closure is a bit like an implicit set of parameters.
Great question! Given that one of the OOP principles of OOP is that objects has behavior as well as data, closures are a special type of object because their most important purpose is their behavior. That said, what do I mean when I talk about their "behavior?"
(A lot of this is drawn from "Groovy in Action" by Dierk Konig, which is an awesome book)
On the simplest level a close is really just some code that's wrapped up to become an androgynous object/method. It's a method because it can take params and return a value, but it's also an object in that you can pass around a reference to it.
In the words of Dierk, imagine an envelope that has a piece of paper inside. A typical object would have variables and their values written on this paper, but a closure would have a list of instructions instead. Let's say the letter says to "Give this envelope and letter to your friends."
In Groovy: Closure envelope = { person -> new Letter(person).send() }
addressBookOfFriends.each (envelope)
The closure object here is the value of the envelope variable and it's use is that it's a param to the each method.
Some details:
Scope: The scope of a closure is the data and members that can be accessed within it.
Returning from a closure: Closures often use a callback mechanism to execute and return from itself.
Arguments: If the closure needs to take only 1 param, Groovy and other langs provide a default name: "it", to make coding quicker.
So for example in our previous example:
addressBookOfFriends.each (envelope)
is the same as:
addressBookOfFriends.each { new Letter(it).send() }
Hope this is what you're looking for!
An object is state plus function.
A closure, is function plus state.
function f is a closure when it closes over (captured) x
I think Peter Eddy has it right, but the example could be made more interesting. You could define two functions which close over a local variable, increment & decrement. The counter would be shared between that pair of functions, and unique to them. If you define a new pair of increment/decrement functions, they would be sharing a different counter.
Also, you don't need to pass in that initial value of x, you could let it default to zero inside the function block. That would make it clearer that it's using a value which you no longer have normal access to otherwise.