I'm trying to add types for the promise.rb gem. Specifically, I'm aiming to create a half-decent definition for the Promise.all static method.
Essentially, it is a flatmap over an array that goes from [Promise[A], Promise[B]] to Promise[[A, B]].
I've got a working signature for one item, and I'd like to hard-code for a few different amounts (say, up to 10), given that I don't think there is a good way to do it automatically.
I can't, as far as I can tell, just put a bunch of sigs above the method definition, which I already tried.
The sig looks like this (in the rbi - no implementation):
sig do
type_parameters(:A)
.params(enum: [
Promise[T.type_parameter(:A)],
])
.returns(Promise[[
T.type_parameter(:A),
]])
end
def self.all(enum); end
for two items, it would look like this:
sig do
type_parameters(:A, :B)
.params(enum: [
Promise[T.type_parameter(:A)],
Promise[T.type_parameter(:B)],
])
.returns(Promise[[
T.type_parameter(:A),
T.type_parameter(:B),
]])
end
def self.all(enum); end
Is there a way to make this work?
Related
In the SWI Prolog manual, I found the following remark:
For example, assume an application that can reason about multiple worlds. It is attractive to store the data of a particular world in a module, so we extract information from a world simply by invoking goals in this world.
This is actually a very good description of what I'm trying to achieve. However I ran into a problem. While I do want to model many different worlds, there are also things that I want to share across all of them. So my idea is to have an allworlds module for things that are true in every world, and one module for every world that I want to reason about, and the latter imports from the former. So I'd do something like this in the REPL:
allworlds:asserta(grandparent(X, Z) :- (parent(X, Y), parent(Y, Z))).
allworlds:dynamic(parent/2).
add_import_module(greece, allworlds, start).
greece:asserta(parent(kronos, zeus)).
greece:asserta(parent(zeus, ares)).
Now I'd like to query greece:grandparent(kronos, X) and get X = ares, but all I get is false. When allworlds:grandparent calls parent, it doesn't call greece:parent like I want it to, but allworlds:parent. My research seems to indicate that I need to make the grandparent predicate module-transparent. But calling allworlds:module_transparent(grandparent/2). didn't fix the issue, and it's also deprecated. This is where I'm stuck. How can I get this working? Is meta_predicate/1 part of the solution? Unfortunately I can't make heads or tails of its documentation.
Prolog modules don't provide a good solution for the "many worlds" design pattern. Notably, making the predicates meta-predicates (or module transparent or multifile) would be a problematic hack. But this pattern is trivial with Logtalk, which is a language extends Prolog and can use most Prolog systems as a backend compiler. A minimal (but not unique) solution for your problem is:
:- object(allworlds).
:- public(grandparent/2).
grandparent(X, Z) :-
::parent(X, Y),
::parent(Y, Z).
:- public(parent/2).
:- end_object.
:- object(greece,
extends(allworlds)).
parent(kronos, zeus).
parent(zeus, ares).
:- end_object.
Here, we use inheritance (the individual worlds inherit the common knowledge) and messages to self (the ::/1 control construct) when common predicates need to access world specific predicate definitions (self is the object/world that received the message - grandparent/2 in the example).
Assuming the code is saved in a worlds.lgt file and that you're using SWI-Prolog as the backend:
$ swilgt
...
?- {worlds}.
% [ /Users/pmoura/worlds.lgt loaded ]
% (0 warnings)
true.
?- greece::grandparent(kronos, X).
X = ares.
P.S. If running on windows, use the "Logtalk - SWI-Prolog" shortcut from the Start Menu after installing Logtalk.
I ultimately solved this by passing the module around explicitly and invoking predicates in it with the : operator. It reminds me a bit of doing OOP in C, where you do things like obj->vtable->method(obj, params) (note how obj is mentioned twice, just like the M in my code below).
Similar to the Logtalk solution, I need to explicitly call into the imported module when I want to consider its clauses. As an example, I've added the fact that a father is also a parent to the allworlds module.
allworlds:assertz(grandparent(M, X, Z) :- (M:parent(M, X, Y), M:parent(M, Y, Z))).
allworlds:assertz(parent(M, X, Y) :- M:father(M, X, Y)).
add_import_module(greece, allworlds, start).
greece:assertz(parent(_, kronos, zeus)).
% need to call into allworlds explicitly
greece:assertz(parent(M, X, Y) :- allworlds:parent(M, X, Y)).
greece:assertz(father(_, zeus, ares)).
After making these assertions, I can call greece:grandparent(greece, kronos, X). and get the expected result X = ares.
I am making my first steps in julia, and I would like to reproduce something I achieved with numpy.
I would like to write a new array-like type which is essentially an vector of elements of arbitrary type, and, to keep the example simple, an scalar attribute such as the sampling frequency fs.
I started with something like
type TimeSeries{T} <: DenseVector{T,}
data::Vector{T}
fs::Float64
end
Ideally, I would like:
1) all methods that take a Vector{T} as argument to take on TimeSeries{T}.
e.g.:
ts = TimeSeries([1,2,3,1,543,1,24,5], 12.01)
median(ts)
2) that indexing a TimeSeries always returns a TimeSeries:
ts[1:3]
3) built-in functions that return a Vector to return a TimeSeries:
ts * 2
ts + [1,2,3,1,543,1,24,5]
I have started by implementing size, getindex and so on, but I definitely do not see how it could be possible to match points 2 and 3.
numpy has a quite comprehensive way to doing this: http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/user/basics.subclassing.html. R also seems to allow linking attributes attr()<- to arrays.
Do you have any idea about the best strategy to implement this sort of "array with attributes".
Maybe I'm not understanding, why is for say point 3 it not sufficient to do
(*)(ts::TimeSeries, n) = TimeSeries(ts.data*n, ts.fs)
(+)(ts::TimeSeries, n) = TimeSeries(ts.data+n, ts.fs)
As for point 2
Base.getindex(ts::TimeSeries, r::Range) = TimeSeries(ts.data[r], ts.fs)
Or are you asking for some easier way where you delegate all these operations to the internal vector? You can clever things like
for op in (:(+), :(*))
#eval $(op)(ts::TimeSeries, x) = TimeSeries($(op)(ts.data,x), ts.fs)
end
There are a few implementations of a hash or dictionary class in the Mathworks File Exchange repository. All that I have looked at use parentheses overloading for key referencing, e.g.
d = Dict;
d('foo') = 'bar';
y = d('foo');
which seems a reasonable interface. It would be preferable, though, if you want to easily have dictionaries which contain other dictionaries, to use braces {} instead of parentheses, as this allows you to get around MATLAB's (arbitrary, it seems) syntax limitation that multiple parentheses are not allowed but multiple braces are allowed, i.e.
t{1}{2}{3} % is legal MATLAB
t(1)(2)(3) % is not legal MATLAB
So if you want to easily be able to nest dictionaries within dictionaries,
dict{'key1'}{'key2'}{'key3'}
as is a common idiom in Perl and is possible and frequently useful in other languages including Python, then unless you want to use n-1 intermediate variables to extract a dictionary entry n layers deep, this seems a good choice. And it would seem easy to rewrite the class's subsref and subsasgn operations to do the same thing for {} as they previously did for (), and everything should work.
Except it doesn't when I try it.
Here's my code. (I've reduced it to a minimal case. No actual dictionary is implemented here, each object has one key and one value, but this is enough to demonstrate the problem.)
classdef TestBraces < handle
properties
% not a full hash table implementation, obviously
key
value
end
methods(Access = public)
function val = subsref(obj, ref)
% Re-implement dot referencing for methods.
if strcmp(ref(1).type, '.')
% User trying to access a method
% Methods access
if ismember(ref(1).subs, methods(obj))
if length(ref) > 1
% Call with args
val = obj.(ref(1).subs)(ref(2).subs{:});
else
% No args
val = obj.(ref.subs);
end
return;
end
% User trying to access something else.
error(['Reference to non-existant property or method ''' ref.subs '''']);
end
switch ref.type
case '()'
error('() indexing not supported.');
case '{}'
theKey = ref.subs{1};
if isequal(obj.key, theKey)
val = obj.value;
else
error('key %s not found', theKey);
end
otherwise
error('Should never happen')
end
end
function obj = subsasgn(obj, ref, value)
%Dict/SUBSASGN Subscript assignment for Dict objects.
%
% See also: Dict
%
if ~strcmp(ref.type,'{}')
error('() and dot indexing for assignment not supported.');
end
% Vectorized calls not supported
if length(ref.subs) > 1
error('Dict only supports storing key/value pairs one at a time.');
end
theKey = ref.subs{1};
obj.key = theKey;
obj.value = value;
end % subsasgn
end
end
Using this code, I can assign as expected:
t = TestBraces;
t{'foo'} = 'bar'
(And it is clear that the assignment work from the default display output for t.) So subsasgn appears to work correctly.
But I can't retrieve the value (subsref doesn't work):
t{'foo'}
??? Error using ==> subsref
Too many output arguments.
The error message makes no sense to me, and a breakpoint at the first executable line of my subsref handler is never hit, so at least superficially this looks like a MATLAB issue, not a bug in my code.
Clearly string arguments to () parenthesis subscripts are allowed, since this works fine if you change the code to work with () instead of {}. (Except then you can't nest subscript operations, which is the object of the exercise.)
Either insight into what I'm doing wrong in my code, any limitations that make what I'm doing unfeasible, or alternative implementations of nested dictionaries would be appreciated.
Short answer, add this method to your class:
function n = numel(obj, varargin)
n = 1;
end
EDIT: The long answer.
Despite the way that subsref's function signature appears in the documentation, it's actually a varargout function - it can produce a variable number of output arguments. Both brace and dot indexing can produce multiple outputs, as shown here:
>> c = {1,2,3,4,5};
>> [a,b,c] = c{[1 3 5]}
a =
1
b =
3
c =
5
The number of outputs expected from subsref is determined based on the size of the indexing array. In this case, the indexing array is size 3, so there's three outputs.
Now, look again at:
t{'foo'}
What's the size of the indexing array? Also 3. MATLAB doesn't care that you intend to interpret this as a string instead of an array. It just sees that the input is size 3 and your subsref can only output 1 thing at a time. So, the arguments mismatch. Fortunately, we can correct things by changing the way that MATLAB determines how many outputs are expected by overloading numel. Quoted from the doc link:
It is important to note the significance of numel with regards to the
overloaded subsref and subsasgn functions. In the case of the
overloaded subsref function for brace and dot indexing (as described
in the last paragraph), numel is used to compute the number of
expected outputs (nargout) returned from subsref. For the overloaded
subsasgn function, numel is used to compute the number of expected
inputs (nargin) to be assigned using subsasgn. The nargin value for
the overloaded subsasgn function is the value returned by numel plus 2
(one for the variable being assigned to, and one for the structure
array of subscripts).
As a class designer, you must ensure that the value of n returned by
the built-in numel function is consistent with the class design for
that object. If n is different from either the nargout for the
overloaded subsref function or the nargin for the overloaded subsasgn
function, then you need to overload numel to return a value of n that
is consistent with the class' subsref and subsasgn functions.
Otherwise, MATLAB produces errors when calling these functions.
And there you have it.
I am working on fairly large Mathematica projects and the problem arises that I have to intermittently check numerical results but want to easily revert to having all my constructs in analytical form.
The code is fairly fluid I don't want to use scoping constructs everywhere as they add work overhead. Is there an easy way for identifying and clearing all assignments that are numerical?
EDIT: I really do know that scoping is the way to do this correctly ;-). However, for my workflow I am really just looking for a dirty trick to nix all numerical assignments after the fact instead of having the foresight to put down a Block.
If your assignments are on the top level, you can use something like this:
a = 1;
b = c;
d = 3;
e = d + b;
Cases[DownValues[In],
HoldPattern[lhs_ = rhs_?NumericQ] |
HoldPattern[(lhs_ = rhs_?NumericQ;)] :> Unset[lhs],
3]
This will work if you have a sufficient history length $HistoryLength (defaults to infinity). Note however that, in the above example, e was assigned 3+c, and 3 here was not undone. So, the problem is really ambiguous in formulation, because some numbers could make it into definitions. One way to avoid this is to use SetDelayed for assignments, rather than Set.
Another alternative would be to analyze the names in say Global' context (if that is the context where your symbols live), and then say OwnValues and DownValues of the symbols, in a fashion similar to the above, and remove definitions with purely numerical r.h.s.
But IMO neither of these approaches are robust. I'd still use scoping constructs and try to isolate numerics. One possibility is to wrap you final code in Block, and assign numerical values inside this Block. This seems a much cleaner approach. The work overhead is minimal - you just have to remember which symbols you want to assign the values to. Block will automatically ensure that outside it, the symbols will have no definitions.
EDIT
Yet another possibility is to use local rules. For example, one could define rule[a] = a->1; rule[d]=d->3 instead of the assignments above. You could then apply these rules, extracting them as say
DownValues[rule][[All, 2]], whenever you want to test with some numerical arguments.
Building on Andrew Moylan's solution, one can construct a Block like function that would takes rules:
SetAttributes[BlockRules, HoldRest]
BlockRules[rules_, expr_] :=
Block ## Append[Apply[Set, Hold#rules, {2}], Unevaluated[expr]]
You can then save your numeric rules in a variable, and use BlockRules[ savedrules, code ], or even define a function that would apply a fixed set of rules, kind of like so:
In[76]:= NumericCheck =
Function[body, BlockRules[{a -> 3, b -> 2`}, body], HoldAll];
In[78]:= a + b // NumericCheck
Out[78]= 5.
EDIT In response to Timo's comment, it might be possible to use NotebookEvaluate (new in 8) to achieve the requested effect.
SetAttributes[BlockRules, HoldRest]
BlockRules[rules_, expr_] :=
Block ## Append[Apply[Set, Hold#rules, {2}], Unevaluated[expr]]
nb = CreateDocument[{ExpressionCell[
Defer[Plot[Sin[a x], {x, 0, 2 Pi}]], "Input"],
ExpressionCell[Defer[Integrate[Sin[a x^2], {x, 0, 2 Pi}]],
"Input"]}];
BlockRules[{a -> 4}, NotebookEvaluate[nb, InsertResults -> "True"];]
As the result of this evaluation you get a notebook with your commands evaluated when a was locally set to 4. In order to take it further, you would have to take the notebook
with your code, open a new notebook, evaluate Notebooks[] to identify the notebook of interest and then do :
BlockRules[variablerules,
NotebookEvaluate[NotebookPut[NotebookGet[nbobj]],
InsertResults -> "True"]]
I hope you can make this idea work.
I'm working through Real World
Haskell one of the
exercises of chapter 4 is to implement an foldr based version of
concat. I thought this would be a great candidate for testing with
QuickCheck since there is an existing implementation to validate my
results. This however requires me to define an instance of the
Arbitrary typeclass that can generate arbitrary [[Int]]. So far I have
been unable to figure out how to do this. My first attempt was:
module FoldExcercises_Test
where
import Test.QuickCheck
import Test.QuickCheck.Batch
import FoldExcercises
prop_concat xs =
concat xs == fconcat xs
where types = xs ::[[Int]]
options = TestOptions { no_of_tests = 200
, length_of_tests = 1
, debug_tests = True }
allChecks = [
run (prop_concat)
]
main = do
runTests "simple" options allChecks
This results in no tests being performed. Looking at various bits and
pieces I guessed that an Arbitrary instance declaration was needed and
added
instance Arbitrary a => Arbitrary [[a]] where
arbitrary = sized arb'
where arb' n = vector n (arbitrary :: Gen a)
This resulted in ghci complaining that my instance declaration was
invalid and that adding -XFlexibleInstances might solve my problem.
Adding the {-# OPTIONS_GHC -XFlexibleInstances #-} directive
results in a type mismatch and an overlapping instances warning.
So my question is what's needed to make this work? I'm obviously new
to Haskell and am not finding any resources that help me out.
Any pointers are much appreciated.
Edit
It appears I was misguided by QuickCheck's output when in a test first manner fconcat is defined as
fconcat = undefined
Actually implementing the function correctly indeed gives the expected result. DOOP!
[[Int]] is already an Arbitrary instance (because Int is an Arbitrary instance, so is [a] for all as that are themselves instances of Arbitrary). So that is not the problem.
I ran your code myself (replacing import FoldExcercises with fconcat = concat) and it ran 200 tests as I would have expected, so I am mystified as to why it doesn't do it for you. But you do NOT need to add an Arbitrary instance.