I have made a Map which includes several Dictionaries. Everytime I receive a data, I will find the corresponding dictionary in the Map, and then add new information in this dictionary.
But the problem is every time I try to add information , it won't add it only in the corresponding dictionary, instead it will add it into all the dictionaries in the map.
please , i am becoming crazy.
while datareceive do
let refdictionary = ref totalmap.[index] //totalmap has a lot of Dictionary, which is indexed by "index"
let dictionnarydata = totalmap.[index]
if dictionnarydata.ContainsKey(key1) then
........
else
refdic.Value.Add(key1,num) //if the corresponding dictionary does not have such information, then add it in it
()
As mentioned in the comments, if you are learning functional programming, then the best approach is to use immutable data structures - here, you could use a map that maps the index to a nested map (which contains the key value information that you need).
Try playing with something like the following sample:
// Add new item (key, num pair) to the map at the specified index
// Since totalMap is immutable, this returns a new map!
let addData index (key:int) (num:int) (totalmap:Map<_, Map<_, _>>) =
// We are assuming that the value for index is defined
let atIndex = totalmap.[index]
let newAtIndex =
// Ignore information if it is already there, otherwise add
if atIndex.ContainsKey key then atIndex
else atIndex.Add(key, num)
// Using the fact that Add replaces existing items, we
// can just add new map in place of the old one
totalmap.Add(index, newAtIndex)
Using the above function, you can now create initial map and then add various information to it:
// Create an int-indexed map containing empty maps as values
let totalmap = Map.ofSeq [ for i in 0 .. 10 -> i, Map.empty ]
totalmap
|> addData 0 1 42
|> addData 0 1 32
|> addData 1 10 1
Related
I am trying to create an empty map, that will be then populated within a for loop. Not sure how to proceed in Rascal. For testing purpose, I tried:
rascal>map[int, list[int]] x;
ok
Though, when I try to populate "x" using:
rascal>x += (1, [1,2,3])
>>>>>>>;
>>>>>>>;
^ Parse error here
I got a parse error.
To start, it would be best to assign it an initial value. You don't have to do this at the console, but this is required if you declare the variable inside a script. Also, if you are going to use +=, it has to already have an assigned value.
rascal>map[int,list[int]] x = ( );
map[int, list[int]]: ()
Then, when you are adding items into the map, the key and the value are separated by a :, not by a ,, so you want something like this instead:
rascal>x += ( 1 : [1,2,3]);
map[int, list[int]]: (1:[1,2,3])
rascal>x[1];
list[int]: [1,2,3]
An easier way to do this is to use similar notation to the lookup shown just above:
rascal>x[1] = [1,2,3];
map[int, list[int]]: (1:[1,2,3])
Generally, if you are just setting the value for one key, or are assigning keys inside a loop, x[key] = value is better, += is better if you are adding two existing maps together and saving the result into one of them.
I also like this solution sometimes, where you instead of joining maps just update the value of a certain key:
m = ();
for (...whatever...) {
m[key]?[] += [1,2,3];
}
In this code, when the key is not yet present in the map, then it starts with the [] empty list and then concatenates [1,2,3] to it, or if the key is present already, let's say it's already at [1,2,3], then this will create [1,2,3,1,2,3] at the specific key in the map.
If I want to change a value on a list, I will return a new list with the new value instead of changing the value on the old list.
Now I have four types. I need to update the value location in varEnd, instead of changing the value, I need to return a new type with the update value
type varEnd = {
v: ctype;
k: varkind;
l: location;
}
;;
type varStart = {
ct: ctype;
sy: sTable;
n: int;
stm: stmt list;
e: expr
}
and sEntry = Var of varEnd | Fun of varStart
and sTable = (string * sEntry) list
type environment = sTable list;;
(a function where environment is the only parameter i can use)
let allocateMem (env:environment) : environment =
I tried to use List.iter, but it changes the value directly, which type is also not mutable. I think List.fold will be a better option.
The biggest issue i have is there are four different types.
I think you're saying that you know how to change an element of a list by constructing a new list.
Now you want to do this to an environment, and an environment is a list of quite complicated things. But this doesn't make any difference, the way to change the list is the same. The only difference is that the replacement value will be a complicated thing.
I don't know what you mean when you say you have four types. I see a lot more than four types listed here. But on the other hand, an environment seems to contain things of basically two different types.
Maybe (but possibly not) you're saying you don't know a good way to change just one of the four fields of a record while leaving the others the same. This is something for which there's a good answer. Assume that x is something of type varEnd. Then you can say:
{ x with l = loc }
If, in fact, you don't know how to modify an element of a list by creating a new list, then that's the thing to figure out first. You can do it with a fold, but in fact you can also do it with List.map, which is a little simpler. You can't do it with List.iter.
Update
Assume we have a record type like this:
type r = { a: int; b: float; }
Here's a function that takes r list list and adds 1.0 to the b fields of those records whose a fields are 0.
let incr_ll rll =
let f r = if r.a = 0 then { r with b = r.b +. 1.0 } else r in
List.map (List.map f) rll
The type of this function is r list list -> r list list.
I have some nondescript but distinct objects (specifically, unnamed variables in logic expressions) that I want to put in a map that associates them with their values. As I understand it, map needs to distinguish objects by some ordered field, so I can't just have
type Term =
...
| Var
as this would not allow different variables distinguishable from each other. Instead I could presumably have
type Term =
...
| Var of int64
and then have a new_var function that increments a global int64 counter and returns a new variable with the incremented value. This seems slightly inelegant, but should work.
Is the global counter the recommended way to handle this, or is there a more idiomatic method?
It's not really a "map having to distinguish objects" thing - when you declare a type like this:
type Term =
| Var
you have a type with a single valid value - Var. If you're saying you want to have objects that are distinct - this is not what you want. You can still use that type as a key in a map - not a particularly useful one though, since it will have at most a single element.
Using a counter is a good enough way to handle it. If you don't want a "global" one, you can roll it into a function using a ref cell to hold it:
type Term =
| Var of int
let make =
let counter = ref 0
fun () ->
counter := !counter + 1
Term.Var (!counter)
Or use GUIDs if you don't care about the values and want the counter out of the picture:
type Term =
| Var of System.Guid
let make () =
Term.Var (System.Guid.NewGuid())
I'm messing around a bit with F# and I'm not quite sure if I'm doing this correctly. In C# this could be done with an IDictionary or something similar.
type School() =
member val Roster = Map.empty with get, set
member this.add(grade: int, studentName: string) =
match this.Roster.ContainsKey(grade) with
| true -> // Can I do something like this.Roster.[grade].Insert([studentName])?
| false -> this.Roster <- this.Roster.Add(grade, [studentName])
Is there a way to insert into the map if it contains a specified key or am I just using the wrong collection in this case?
The F# Map type is a mapping from keys to values just like ordinary .NET Dictionary, except that it is immutable.
If I understand your aim correctly, you're trying to keep a list of students for each grade. The type in that case is a map from integers to lists of names, i.e. Map<int, string list>.
The Add operation on the map actually either adds or replaces an element, so I think that's the operation you want in the false case. In the true case, you need to get the current list, append the new student and then replace the existing record. One way to do this is to write something like:
type School() =
member val Roster = Map.empty with get, set
member this.Add(grade: int, studentName: string) =
// Try to get the current list of students for a given 'grade'
let studentsOpt = this.Roster.TryFind(grade)
// If the result was 'None', then use empty list as the default
let students = defaultArg studentsOpt []
// Create a new list with the new student at the front
let newStudents = studentName::students
// Create & save map with new/replaced mapping for 'grade'
this.Roster <- this.Roster.Add(grade, newStudents)
This is not thread-safe (because calling Add concurrently might not update the map properly). However, you can access school.Roster at any time, iterate over it (or share references to it) safely, because it is an immutable structure. However, if you do not care about that, then using standard Dictionary would be perfectly fine too - depends on your actual use case.
In this jsfiddle(http://jsfiddle.net/3NUJE/3/), I'm changing the data key bound to an object by passing a different string:
// Create rectangles
var rects = chart
.selectAll('rect')
.data(data, function(d) {return d + 'a'})
...
// Update data -- all should be removed
d3.selectAll('rect')
.data([5,6], function(d) { return(d + 'b'); })
.exit()
.transition()
.delay(2000)
.remove();
Unfortunately, these are bound to the same key (ie, 5 and 6 don't get removed)-- is it possible to differentiate them without changing the data array that I pass?
The key function that you can pass to .data() is executed for both the new data elements and the ones that are bound already. That is, when you bind data and use a key function, the key returned by that function isn't stored with the data. This means that it doesn't matter what you change the key function to for your second call, as long as the actual data is the only thing that changes the new data will match existing data.
For example for data element 5 the key function returns 5b. For the data already bound to the elements it returns 1b, 4b, 5b, etc. The two 5b match.
You could pass objects with more attributes instead of numbers and then use another attribute (which would have to be different for the new data) as a key.