The following code complains
ERROR: `setindex!` has no method matching setindex!(::Type{Array{Int32,32}}, ::Int32, ::Int64)
Should I be able to do this? The problem, I think, is that the loop variable has the wrong type to be used as an array index?
n = parseint(readline(STDIN))
A = Array{Int32, n}
for i in 1:n-1
ai = parseint(Int32, readuntil(STDIN, ' '))
A[i] = ai #The error happens here!
end
A[n] = parseint(Int32, readline(STDIN))
Your assignment of A is legal, but it doesn't do what you think it does.
A = Array{Int32,n}
julia> typeof(A)
DataType
This declares an A to be the type representing an array of n dimensions. What you want instead, probably is A to be a variable of type Array{Int32,1} that contains n elements. So instead try the following:
A = Array(Int32,n);
julia> typeof(A)
Array{Int32,1}
Related
I'm still learning Julia, and I recently came across the following code excerpt that flummoxed me:
res = (; [(:x, 10), (:y, 20)]...) # why the semicolon in front?
println(res) # (x = 10, y = 20)
println(typeof(res)) # NamedTuple{(:x, :y), Tuple{Int64, Int64}}
I understand the "splat" operator ..., but what happens when the semicolon appear first in a tuple? In other words, how does putting a semicolon in (; [(:x, 10), (:y, 20)]...) create a NamedTuple? Is this some undocumented feature/trick?
Thanks for any pointers.
Yes, this is actually a documented feature, but perhaps not a very well known one. As the documentation for NamedTuple notes:
help?> NamedTuple
search: NamedTuple #NamedTuple
NamedTuple
NamedTuples are, as their name suggests, named Tuples. That is, they're a tuple-like
collection of values, where each entry has a unique name, represented as a Symbol.
Like Tuples, NamedTuples are immutable; neither the names nor the values can be
modified in place after construction.
Accessing the value associated with a name in a named tuple can be done using field
access syntax, e.g. x.a, or using getindex, e.g. x[:a]. A tuple of the names can be
obtained using keys, and a tuple of the values can be obtained using values.
[... some other non-relevant parts of the documentation omitted ...]
In a similar fashion as to how one can define keyword arguments programmatically, a
named tuple can be created by giving a pair name::Symbol => value or splatting an
iterator yielding such pairs after a semicolon inside a tuple literal:
julia> (; :a => 1)
(a = 1,)
julia> keys = (:a, :b, :c); values = (1, 2, 3);
julia> (; zip(keys, values)...)
(a = 1, b = 2, c = 3)
As in keyword arguments, identifiers and dot expressions imply names:
julia> x = 0
0
julia> t = (; x)
(x = 0,)
julia> (; t.x)
(x = 0,)
I'm studying Standard ML and one of the exercices I have to do is to write a function called opPairs that receives a list of tuples of type int, and returns a list with the sum of each pair.
Example:
input: opPairs [(1, 2), (3, 4)]
output: val it = [3, 7]
These were my attempts, which are not compiling:
ATTEMPT 1
type T0 = int * int;
fun opPairs ((h:TO)::t) = let val aux =(#1 h + #2 h) in
aux::(opPairs(t))
end;
The error message is:
Error: unbound type constructor: TO
Error: operator and operand don't agree [type mismatch]
operator domain: {1:'Y; 'Z}
operand: [E]
in expression:
(fn {1=1,...} => 1) h
ATTEMPT 2
fun opPairs2 l = map (fn x => #1 x + #2 x ) l;
The error message is: Error: unresolved flex record (need to know the names of ALL the fields
in this context)
type: {1:[+ ty], 2:[+ ty]; 'Z}
The first attempt has a typo: type T0 is defined, where 0 is zero, but then type TO is referenced in the pattern, where O is the letter O. This gets rid of the "operand and operator do not agree" error, but there is a further problem. The pattern ((h:T0)::t) does not match an empty list, so there is a "match nonexhaustive" warning with the corrected type identifier. This manifests as an exception when the function is used, because the code needs to match an empty list when it reaches the end of the input.
The second attempt needs to use a type for the tuples. This is because the tuple accessor #n needs to know the type of the tuple it accesses. To fix this problem, provide the type of the tuple argument to the anonymous function:
fun opPairs2 l = map (fn x:T0 => #1 x + #2 x) l;
But, really it is bad practice to use #1, #2, etc. to access tuple fields; use pattern matching instead. Here is a cleaner approach, more like the first attempt, but taking full advantage of pattern matching:
fun opPairs nil = nil
| opPairs ((a, b)::cs) = (a + b)::(opPairs cs);
Here, opPairs returns an empty list when the input is an empty list, otherwise pattern matching provides the field values a and b to be added and consed recursively onto the output. When the last tuple is reached, cs is the empty list, and opPairs cs is then also the empty list: the individual tuple sums are then consed onto this empty list to create the output list.
To extend on exnihilo's answer, once you have achieved familiarity with the type of solution that uses explicit recursion and pattern matching (opPairs ((a, b)::cs) = ...), you can begin to generalise the solution using list combinators:
val opPairs = map op+
I am trying to use ForwardDiff in a library where almost all functions are restricted to only take in Floats. I want to generalise these function signatures so that ForwardDiff can be used while still being restrictive enough so functions only take numeric values and not things like Dates. I have alot of functions with the same name but different types (ie functions that take in "time" as either a float or a Date with the same function name) and do not want to remove the type qualifiers throughout.
Minimal Working Example
using ForwardDiff
x = [1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 ,5.0]
typeof(x) # Array{Float64,1}
function G(x::Array{Real,1})
return sum(exp.(x))
end
function grad_F(x::Array)
return ForwardDiff.gradient(G, x)
end
G(x) # Method Error
grad_F(x) # Method error
function G(x::Array{Float64,1})
return sum(exp.(x))
end
G(x) # This works
grad_F(x) # This has a method error
function G(x)
return sum(exp.(x))
end
G(x) # This works
grad_F(x) # This works
# But now I cannot restrict the function G to only take numeric arrays and not for instance arrays of Dates.
Is there are a way to restict functions to only take numeric values (Ints and Floats) and whatever dual number structs that ForwardDiff uses but not allow Symbols, Dates, etc.
ForwardDiff.Dual is a subtype of the abstract type Real. The issue you have, however, is that Julia's type parameters are invariant, not covariant. The following, then, returns false.
# check if `Array{Float64, 1}` is a subtype of `Array{Real, 1}`
julia> Array{Float64, 1} <: Array{Real, 1}
false
That makes your function definition
function G(x::Array{Real,1})
return sum(exp.(x))
end
incorrect (not suitable for your use). That's why you get the following error.
julia> G(x)
ERROR: MethodError: no method matching G(::Array{Float64,1})
The correct definition should rather be
function G(x::Array{<:Real,1})
return sum(exp.(x))
end
or if you somehow need an easy access to the concrete element type of the array
function G(x::Array{T,1}) where {T<:Real}
return sum(exp.(x))
end
The same goes for your grad_F function.
You might find it useful to read the relevant section of the Julia documentation for types.
You might also want to type annotate your functions for AbstractArray{<:Real,1} type rather than Array{<:Real, 1} so that your functions can work other types of arrays, like StaticArrays, OffsetArrays etc., without a need for redefinitions.
This would accept any kind of array parameterized by any kind of number:
function foo(xs::AbstractArray{<:Number})
#show typeof(xs)
end
or:
function foo(xs::AbstractArray{T}) where T<:Number
#show typeof(xs)
end
In case you need to refer to the type parameter T inside the body function.
x1 = [1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 ,5.0]
x2 = [1, 2, 3,4, 5]
x3 = 1:5
x4 = 1.0:5.0
x5 = [1//2, 1//4, 1//8]
xss = [x1, x2, x3, x4, x5]
function foo(xs::AbstractArray{T}) where T<:Number
#show xs typeof(xs) T
println()
end
for xs in xss
foo(xs)
end
Outputs:
xs = [1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0]
typeof(xs) = Array{Float64,1}
T = Float64
xs = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
typeof(xs) = Array{Int64,1}
T = Int64
xs = 1:5
typeof(xs) = UnitRange{Int64}
T = Int64
xs = 1.0:1.0:5.0
typeof(xs) = StepRangeLen{Float64,Base.TwicePrecision{Float64},Base.TwicePrecision{Float64}}
T = Float64
xs = Rational{Int64}[1//2, 1//4, 1//8]
typeof(xs) = Array{Rational{Int64},1}
T = Rational{Int64}
You can run the example code here: https://repl.it/#SalchiPapa/Restricting-function-signatures-in-Julia
Hello i trying create converter method from Disct to Vector in Julia language.
But i receive error, with i can't understand
ERROR: TypeError: Tuple: in parameter, expected Type{T}, got Dict{AbstractString,Int64}
My code
type Family
name::UTF8String
value::Int
end
function convertToVector(a1::Dict{AbstractString, Int64}())
A::Vector{Node}
for k in sort(collect(keys(a1)))
push!(A, Family(a1[k] , k))
end
return A
end
Any idea hot to change convertToVector method ?
There were several typos in the above code, but I think this should work:
# No () after the type of a1
# Also, see comment, better to parameterize function, use concrete type for Dict
function convertToVector{T<:AbstractString}(a1::Dict{T, Int64})
# This is how you create an empty vector to hold Family objects
A = Vector{Family}()
for k in sort(collect(keys(a1)))
# The values passed to the Family constructor were backwards
push!(A, Family(k, a1[k]))
end
A
end
Another way (probably not very quick):
julia> dict = Dict("fred" => 3, "jim" => 4)
Dict{ASCIIString,Int64} with 2 entries:
"fred" => 3
"jim" => 4
julia> Vector{Family}(map(f -> Family(f...), map(x -> collect(x), dict)))
2-element Array{Family,1}:
Family("fred",3)
Family("jim",4)
Perhaps I've been using too much Lisp recently...
Suppose I have a Dict defined as follows:
x = Dict{AbstractString,Array{Integer,1}}("A" => [1,2,3], "B" => [4,5,6])
I want to convert this to a DataFrame object (from the DataFrames module). Constructing a DataFrame has a similar syntax to constructing a dictionary. For example, the above dictionary could be manually constructed as a data frame as follows:
DataFrame(A = [1,2,3], B = [4,5,6])
I haven't found a direct way to get from a dictionary to a data frame but I figured one could exploit the syntactic similarity and write a macro to do this. The following doesn't work at all but it illustrates the approach I had in mind:
macro dict_to_df(x)
typeof(eval(x)) <: Dict || throw(ArgumentError("Expected Dict"))
return quote
DataFrame(
for k in keys(eval(x))
#eval ($k) = $(eval(x)[$k])
end
)
end
end
I also tried writing this as a function, which does work when all dictionary values have the same length:
function dict_to_df(x::Dict)
s = "DataFrame("
for k in keys(x)
v = x[k]
if typeof(v) <: AbstractString
v = string('"', v, '"')
end
s *= "$(k) = $(v),"
end
s = chop(s) * ")"
return eval(parse(s))
end
Is there a better, faster, or more idiomatic approach to this?
Another method could be
DataFrame(Any[values(x)...],Symbol[map(symbol,keys(x))...])
It was a bit tricky to get the types in order to access the right constructor. To get a list of the constructors for DataFrames I used methods(DataFrame).
The DataFrame(a=[1,2,3]) way of creating a DataFrame uses keyword arguments. To use splatting (...) for keyword arguments the keys need to be symbols. In the example x has strings, but these can be converted to symbols. In code, this is:
DataFrame(;[Symbol(k)=>v for (k,v) in x]...)
Finally, things would be cleaner if x had originally been with symbols. Then the code would go:
x = Dict{Symbol,Array{Integer,1}}(:A => [1,2,3], :B => [4,5,6])
df = DataFrame(;x...)