Does D provide some way of reflecting on the values of an enumeration, say e, typically iterating over each of its values a bit similar to .tupleof for structs and classes. I guess we could always do
foreach (val; e.min..e.max)
but what about non-continuous enumerations? And enumerations are inclusive on max-value but ranges are not.
Update: I just discovered: http://dlang.org/phobos/std_traits.html#.EnumMembers
I believe this all we need right?
std.traits.EnumMembers can do it, and so can __traits(allMembers,YourEnum).
foreach(value, name; EnumMembers!YourEnum) { } sounds like what you want.
Related
I am working with a type punning example and am wondering if WP or another plugin can handle this. So far, I couldn't really find anything on WP and unions, but they seem to be supported.
Here is an example snippet:
float uint32_reg_to_float(uint32_t val) {
union {
uint32_t ui32;
float f;
} u;
u.ui32 = val;
return u.f;
}
As far as I can tell, WP will only be able to deal with programs that use unions in the most restricted sense, i.e. which always read the exact same field that has been written to the last time the union was updated (in which case, from a purely logical point of view, you can more or less see all the fields as distinct variables). It's probably not what you meant by type punning, though...
On the other hand, Eva shouldn't have any problem with such unions, with the obvious caveat that an abstract bit pattern that would result in a small integer interval might be much more imprecise when interpreted as float and vice-versa.
I want to find some ACSL annotation that can be applied to a function or function pointer to indicate that it has the property of referential transparency. Some way to say "this function will always return the same value when given the same arguments". So far I haven't found any such way. Can anyone point me to a way to express that?
Maybe some way to refer to an arbitrary logic function? If I could name an unknown logic boolean uknown_function(void* a, void* b) = /* this is unkown */; then I could document a function as having a postcondition that it's \result is equal to this arbitrary/unknown logic function?
The larger context is trying to do type-erased comparisons. I want to generally express the concept of "the user has given me void*s to work with and a bool (*)(void const*, void const*) to compare them with, and the user is guaranteeing to me that the function provided really is a strict partial order over whatever those pointers point to." If I had that, then I could start to describe properties of these type-erased objects being sorted, for example.
There is indeed no direct possibility to do that in ACSL: a function contract only specifies what happens during a single call of the function. You could indeed rely on a declared but left undefined logic function, with a reads clause that specifies the part of the C memory state that the function will need to compute its result, e.g.
/*# logic boolean unknown_function{L}(int* a, int* b) reads a[0 .. 1], b[2 .. 3]; */
but if you work with void *, without knowing the size of the underlying objects, this might be tricky to specify: unless the result of unknown_function relies solely on the value of the pointer, and not the content of the pointed object, in which case you don't need that reads trick.
Note in addition that contracts over function pointers are not supported yet, which will probably be an issue for what you intend to do if I understand correctly your last paragraph.
Finally, you might be interested in an upcoming plug-in, RPP, that proposes a way to specify, prove, and use properties relating several calls of one or more C function(s). It is described here and here, and a public release should happen in a not-too-distant future.
Ceylon has several different concepts for things that might all be considered some kind of array: List, Tuple, Sequence, Sequential, Iterable, Array, Collection, Category, etc. What's is different about these these types and when should I use them?
The best place to start to learn about these things at a basic level is the Ceylon tour. And the place to learn about these things in depth is the module API. It can also be helpful to look at the source files for these.
Like all good modern programming languages, the first few interfaces are super abstract. They are built around one formal member and provide their functionality through a bunch of default and actual members. (In programming languages created before Java 8, you may have heard these called "traits" to distinguish them from traditional interfaces which have only formal members and no functionality.)
Category
Let's start by talking about the interface Category. It represents types of which you can ask "does this collection contain this object", but you may not necessarily be able to get any of the members out of the collection. It's formal member is:
shared formal Boolean contains(Element element)
An example might be the set of all the factors of a large number—you can efficiently test if any integer is a factor, but not efficiently get all the factors.
Iterable
A subtype of Category is the interface Iterable. It represents types from which you can get each element one at a time, but not necessarily index the elements. The elements may not have a well-defined order. The elements may not even exist yet but are generated on the fly. The collection may even be infinitely long! It's formal member is:
shared formal Iterator<Element> iterator()
An example would be a stream of characters like standard out. Another example would be a range of integers provided to a for loop, for which it is more memory efficient to generate the numbers one at a time.
This is a special type in Ceylon and can be abbreviated {Element*} or {Element+} depending on if the iterable might be empty or is definitely not empty, respectively.
Collection
One of Iterable's subtypes is the interface Collection. It has one formal member:
shared formal Collection<Element> clone()
But that doesn't really matter. The important thing that defines a Collection is this line in the documentation:
All Collections are required to support a well-defined notion of value
equality, but the definition of equality depends upon the kind of
collection.
Basically, a Collection is a collection who structure is well-defined enough to be equatable to each other and clonable. This requirement for a well-defined structure means that this is the last of the super abstract interfaces, and the rest are going to look like more familiar collections.
List
One of Collection's subtypes is the interface List. It represents a collection whose elements we can get by index (myList[42]). Use this type when your function requires an array to get things out of, but doesn't care if it is mutable or immutable. It has a few formal methods, but the important one comes from its other supertype Correspondence:
shared formal Item? get(Integer key)
Sequential, Sequence, Empty
The most important of List's subtypes is the interface Sequential. It represents an immutable List. Ceylon loves this type and builds a lot of syntax around it. It is known as [Element*] and Element[]. It has exactly two subtypes:
Empty (aka []), which represents empty collections
Sequence (aka [Element+]), which represents nonempty collections.
Because the collections are immutable, there are lots of things you can do with them that you can't do with mutable collections. For one, numerous operations can fail with null on empty lists, like reduce and first, but if you first test that the type is Sequence then you can guarantee these operations will always succeed because the collection can't become empty later (they're immutable after all).
Tuple
A very special subtype of Sequence is Tuple, the first true class listed here. Unlike Sequence, where all the elements are constrained to one type Element, a Tuple has a type for each element. It gets special syntax in Ceylon, where [String, Integer, String] is an immutable list of exactly three elements with exactly those types in exactly that order.
Array
Another subtype of List is Array, also a true class. This is the familiar Java array, a mutable fixed-size list of elements.
drhagen has already answered the first part of your question very well, so I’m just going to say a bit on the second part: when do you use which type?
In general: when writing a function, make it accept the most general type that supports the operations you need. So far, so obvious.
Category is very abstract and rarely useful.
Iterable should be used if you expect some stream of elements which you’re just going to iterate over (or use stream operations like filter, map, etc.).
Another thing to consider about Iterable is that it has some extra syntax sugar in named arguments:
void printAll({Anything*} things, String prefix = "") {
for (thing in things) {
print(prefix + (thing?.string else "<null>"));
}
}
printAll { "a", "b", "c" };
printAll { prefix = "X"; "a", "b", "c" };
Try online
Any parameter of type Iterable can be supplied as a list of comma-separated arguments at the end of a named argument list. That is,
printAll { "a", "b", "c" };
is equivalent to
printAll { things = { "a", "b", "c" }; };
This allows you to craft DSL-style expressions; the tour has some nice examples.
Collection is, like Correspondence, fairly abstract and in my experience rarely used directly.
List sounds like it should be a often used type, but actually I don’t recall using it a lot. I’m not sure why. I seem to skip over it and declare my parameters as either Iterable or Sequential.
Sequential and Sequence are when you want an immutable, fixed-length list. It also has some syntax sugar: variadic methods like void foo(String* bar) are a shortcut for a Sequential or Sequence parameter. Sequential also allows you to do use the nonempty operator, which often works out nicely in combination with first and rest:
String commaSeparated(String[] strings) {
if (nonempty strings) {
value sb = StringBuilder();
sb.append(strings.first); // known to exist
for (string in strings.rest) { // skip the first one
sb.append(", ").append(string);
// we don’t need a separate boolean to track if we need the comma or not :)
}
return sb.string;
} else {
return "";
}
}
Try online
I usually use Sequential and Sequence when I’m going to iterate over a stream several times (which could be expensive for a generic Iterable), though List might be the better interface for that.
Tuple should never be used as Tuple (except in the rare case where you’re abstracting over them), but with the [X, Y, Z] syntax sugar it’s often useful. You can often refine a Sequential member to a Tuple in a subclass, e. g. the superclass has a <String|Integer>[] elements which in one subclass is known to be a [String, Integer] elements.
Array I’ve never used as a parameter type, only rarely as a class to instantiate and use.
I'm a C and Matlab programmer moving to Julia, and I'm trying to understand how function options should look when passed in.
Sometimes, a function provides different functionality based on an argument passed in with a limited number of different options. In C, it could look something like this:
enum Options{
OPTION_1,
OPTION_2
};
// Other arguments omitted
void foo(..., enum Options option){
switch(option){
case OPTION_1:
// Do something
break;
case OPTION_2:
// Do something else
break;
}
}
In Julia, I am not sure how to structure this. My first attempt used a hierarchy of abstract types, and then a function that accepts a singleton type to make the decision. See the following code:
abstract Options
abstract Option_1 <: Options
abstract Option_2 <: Options
function foo{T<:Options}(..., ::Type{T})
if isa(Option_1, Type{T}
//Do something
elseif isa(Option_2, Type{T})
//Do something else
end
end
However, this seems like a very strange way to approach the problem; creating types just to control function input feels awfully strange.
Also, to clarify, I don't think that this is a solution solvable by general parametric methods in Julia. I am looking for the user to be able to specify a flag (such as run version 1 or version 2), not have different functionality based on input type.
Thanks for the help!
I think parametric methods are actually exactly what you are looking for.
abstract Option_1
abstract Option_2
foo{T<:Options_1}(...) = do_something()
foo{T<:Options_2}(...) = do_something_else()
if there is common code between the two implementations then factor it out into another function and use it in both. Julia doesn't have enums but it does have ways to accomplish the same thing and parametric methods are a perfectly valid way to do so.
If you analyse your question, what you are doing is choosing one of two different functionalities via an argument. Thus you actually have two different functions mixed up inside a single function, and you can (and should) split the two different functionalities out into two different functions.
Once you have done this, it's a short step to realise that the way you decide which function to call is probably (or, at least, often) related to the type of an object. But maybe if you give some more details of your actual use case, we can suggest other alternatives. For example, it might just be a boolean variable that turns on or off a certain type of behaviour.
Note that in Julia v0.4 (the current stable version), you can also use #enum to create enums similar to those available in C: see the NEWS.md file.
I'm learning Go, and I'm a little confused about when to use pointers. Specifically, when returning a struct from a function, when is it appropriate to return the struct instance itself, and when is it appropriate to return a pointer to the struct?
Example code:
type Car struct {
make string
model string
}
func Whatever() {
var car Car
car := Car{"honda", "civic"}
// ...
return car
}
What are the situations where I would want to return a pointer, and where I would not want to? Is there a good rule of thumb?
There are two things you want to keep in mind, performance and API.
How is a Car used? Is it an object which has state? Is it a large struct? Unfortunately, it is impossible to answer when I have no idea what a Car is. Truthfully, the best way is to see what others do and copy them. Eventually, you get a feeling for this sort of thing. I will now describe three examples from the standard library and explain why I think they used what they did.
hash/crc32: The crc32.NewIEEE() function returns a pointer type (actually, an interface, but the underlying type is a pointer). An instance of a hash function has state. As you write information to a hash, it sums up the data so when you call the Sum() method, it will give you the state of that one instance.
time: The time.Date function returns a Time struct. Why? A time is a time. It has no state. It is like an integer where you can compare them, preform maths on them, etc. The API designer decided that a modification to a time would not change the current one but make a new one. As a user of the library, if I want the time one month from now, I would want a new time object, not to change the current one I have. A time is also only 3 words in length. In other words, it is small and there would be no performance gain in using a pointer.
math/big: big.NewInt() is an interesting one. We can pretty much agree that when you modify a big.Int, you will often want a new one. A big.Int has no internal state, so why is it a pointer? The answer is simply performance. The programmers realized that big ints are … big. Constantly allocating each time you do a mathematical operation may not be practical. So, they decided to use pointers and allow the programmer to decide when to allocate new space.
Have I answered your question? Probably not. It is a design decision and you need to figure it out on a case by case basis. I use the standard library as a guide when I am designing my own libraries. It really all comes down to judgement and how you expect client code to use your types.
Very losely, exceptions are likely to show up in specific circumstances:
Return a value when it is really small (no more than few words).
Return a pointer when the copying overhead would substantially hurt performance (size is a lot of words).
Often, when you want to mimic an object-oriented style, where you have an "object" that stores state and "methods" that can alter the object, then you would have a "constructor" function that returns a pointer to a struct (think of it as the "object reference" as in other OO languages). Mutator methods would have to be methods of the pointer-to-the-struct type instead of the struct type itself, in order to change the fields of the "object", so it's convenient to have a pointer to the struct instead of a struct value itself, so that all "methods" will be in its method set.
For example, to mimic something like this in Java:
class Car {
String make;
String model;
public Car(String myMake) { make = myMake; }
public setMake(String newMake) { make = newMake; }
}
You would often see something like this in Go:
type Car struct {
make string
model string
}
func NewCar(myMake string) *Car {
return &Car{myMake, ""}
}
func (self *Car) setMake(newMake string) {
self.make = newMake
}