I cannot interpolate ::GLOBAL::EXPORT($var)::. What am I doing wrong?
I'm trying to play with exports because they are hard to optimize sometimes.
I try to produce tags for a group of constants.
In reality a few constants are in visible in module scope, but some of them are in a TAG just to separate them and to use them on demand.
But the objective of my question is just to understand why I cannot interpolate what should seem to be very easy.
The error is an exception with new; I've lost the trace for now.
See the code below.
unit module TestImports;
sub bar is export { say "bar sub" }
sub baz is export { say "baz sub" }
my $var = 'He heu hey';
my $aar = 'He heu hey';
my $vaa = 'He heu hey';
my $kar = 'He heu hey';
my $vor = 'He heu hey';
constant A = 333;
constant APPART is export(:AP) = 174;
constant COLOR_A = 24;
constant COLOR_B = 84;
constant COLOR_C = 88;
constant COLOR_D = 92;
constant COLOR_E is export(:SPECIAL)= 144;
constant COLOR_F = 98;
constant COLOR_G = 118;
constant COLOR_H = 214;
constant COLOR_I = 800;
my package EXPORT::MYTAG {
#filter the colors;
my %c = TestImports::.grep(*.key.match(/^ ( COLOR_ <[A..Z]>+ ) $ /));
#filter allready in TAG exported : so we exclude those that we do not want.
my %e = EXPORT::.grep( *.key.grep( none /^ : ( ALL || DEFAULT || MYTAG ) $ /));
#This nearly works but will fail for :SPECIAL Tag because it's yet exported :(
for %c {
next if .key eq 'EXPORT';
.key.say;
OUR::{.key} := .value;
}
#NOTE: So we must exclude, :SPECIAL (and ev. others) building a loop with e.
#IF i did well red the doc ALL SPECIAL should be in GLOBAL::EXPORT::SPECIAL::%(kv);
#and
::GLOBAL::EXPORT::SPECIAL::.raku.say => WORKS; ==> (COLOR_E(80)) SO:
for %e.kv -> $k,$v {
#HERE IS THE QUESTION!!!!!!
::GLOBAL::EXPORT::($k)::.raku.say; #SHOULD WORK but does not: WHY.
}
}
Main script just for testing is this one.
#!/bin/env raku
use TestImports :DEFAULT, :MYTAG :AP ;
#Most of the time : Everything works!but it should work always
say TOTITOTO;
say INTER;
say WANDER;
say WANDER_FULL;
say WANDER3FULL;
say APPART;
say TestImports::A;
#say COLOR_INTER;
bar();
baz();
Thing.new.foo;
This answer is barely an answer, but then your question is barely a question, so perhaps it all balances out. ;)
Cannot interpolate trying to emulate EXPORT_OK Tag
I googled "EXPORT_OK". It's Perl. Simple forms of it seem simple. Why aren't you just sticking with simple tagging?
I cannot interpolate ::GLOBAL::EXPORT($var)::
There's no such package as GLOBAL::EXPORT. The EXPORT generated by Rakudo is a lexical package (declared with my) not a global package (declared with our). Your EXPORT::MYTAG package is explicitly declared with my.
::GLOBAL::EXPORT($var) attempts to call a package as if it were a function which won't work either. But that's presumably just a typo.
At a guess you meant EXPORT::($var) or something like that.
I don't know what you really want because your code doesn't compile and is too long and messy.
I'm trying to play with exports because they are hard to optimize sometimes.
If you mean Perl exports, Raku isn't Perl.
If you mean Raku exports, and mean performance, then please share your --profile results. If you mean some other aspect of optimizing, then please clarify what that is.
In reality a few constants are in visible in module scope, but some of them, are in a TAG just to separate them and to use them on demand.
The constant declarator has an implicit our declarator by default. If you don't want that, put my in front, i.e. my constant ....
But the objective of my question is just to understand wy i cannot interpolate what should seam to be very easy.
If the above hasn't answered your question, please produce a much shorter and cleaner version of your question and then we might be able to help.
The error is an exception with new, i'v lost the trace for now.
The error I see in your deleted "answer" is:
Failure.new(exception => X::NoSuchSymbol.new(symbol => "GLOBAL::EXPORT::SPECIAL"))
That's a Failure value (which is an error value containing an unthrown exception that allows code to continue to run provided nothing tries to use the error value as if it were OK).
It says there's no such symbol (NoSuchSymbol) as GLOBAL::EXPORT::SPECIAL. That's correct, because there is no such symbol/package, as explained near the start of this answer.
I see this in your comments under your deleted "answer":
I think the example is too long
Yes. I'm pretty sure that, whatever it is that you're trying to ask, it should be askable in less than 10 lines of code. See Minimal Reproducible Example for further guidance on how best to ask a question.
But I suspect the primary problem is more basic than that.
If you are experiencing problems with Raku exporting, then it seems likely that you're just using it incorrectly.
If you are using it correctly, then the first thing to do, before thinking about trying to optimize anything, is to use --profile in accord with Knuth's dictum that "Premature optimization is the root of all evil" and share your results.
So I tried using code from another post around here to see if I could use it, it was a code meant to utilize a potentiometer to move a servo motor, but when I attempted to compile it is gave the error above saying No operator "=" matches these operands in "Servo_Project.cpp". How do I go about fixing this error?
Just in case ill say this, the boards I was trying to compile the code were a NUCLEO-L476RG, the board from the post I mentioned utilized Nucleo L496ZG board and a Tower Pro Micro Servo 9G.
#include "mbed.h"
#include "Servo.h"
Servo myservo(D6);
AnalogOut MyPot(A0);
int main() {
float PotReading;
PotReading = MyPot.read();
while(1) {
for(int i=0; i<100; i++) {
myservo = (i/100);
wait(0.01);
}
}
}
This line:
myservo = (i/100);
Is wrong in a couple of ways. First, i/100 will always be zero - integer division truncates in C++. Second, there's not an = operator that allows an integer value to be assigned to a Servo object. YOu need to invoke some kind of Servo method instead, likely write().
myservo.write(SOMETHING);
The SOMETHING should be the position or speed of the servo you're trying to get working. See the Servo class reference for an explanation. Your code tries to use fractions from 0-1 and thatvisn't going to work - the Servo wants a position/speed between 0 and 180.
You should look in the Servo.h header to see what member functions and operators are implemented.
Assuming what you are using is this, it does have:
Servo& operator= (float percent);
Although note that the parameter is float and you are passing an int (the parameter is also in the range 0.0 to 1.0 - so not "percent" as its name suggests - so be wary, both the documentation and the naming are poor). You should have:
myservo = i/100.0f;
However, even though i / 100 would produce zero for all i in the loop, that does not explain the error, since an implicit cast should be possible - even if clearly undesirable. You should look in the actual header you are using to see if the operator= is declared - possibly you have the wrong file or a different version or just an entirely different implementation that happens to use teh same name.
I also notice that if you look in the header, there is no documentation mark-up for this function and the Servo& operator= (Servo& rhs); member is not documented at all - hence the confusing automatically generated "Shorthand for the write and read functions." on the Servo doc page when the function shown is only one of those things. It is possible it has been removed from your version.
Given that the documentation is incomplete and that the operator= looks like an after thought, the simplest solution is to use the read() / write() members directly in any case. Or implement your own Servo class - it appears to be only a thin wrapper/facade of the PwmOut class in any case. Since that is actually part of mbed rather than user contributed code of unknown quality, you may be on firmer ground.
I'm trying to refactor a small amount of legacy non-functional-totally-procedural-old-school-"is this FORTRAN?!" code, and I'd like some input.
Since Swift 3 is getting rid of the "confusing" ++ prefix/postfix operator, along with C-style for loops, I've been hard at work updating my gross Swift 2.0 (and really gross C and Objective-C) files, and for the most part, it hasn't been too bad. However, I've run into one of those pesky do...while loops that I probably wrote after a night of heavy drinking.
Here's a slimmed down version of the original code:
BSDPath *startPath = &ctx->paths[startIdx];
BSDPath *endPath = &ctx->paths[endIdx];
BSDPath *currentPath = startPath;
do {
if (flags & CurveElement) {
// ... Some code here ...
}
} while (currentPath++ != endPath);
I've Swiftified some stuff, and now I'm here:
let startPath = ctx.paths[index]
let endPath = ctx.paths[endIndex]
var currentPath = startPath
repeat {
if flags.contains(.Curve) {
// ... Some code here ...
}
index += 1
currentPath = ctx.paths[index]
} while currentPath != endPath
As you can C, I've Swiftly converted most of it to the new nice and clean Apple of my eye. However, I can't help but wonder if there's an even cleaner way of writing this — that is, without totally throwing out the bath water and giving in to the for...in siren song. To be honest, I'm not even sure if that code runs correctly. I've never really been able to wrap my head around the control flow of the do...while statement. I mean, I get how it works, but it just seems backwards to me. But I digress.
I suppose the reason I want to know the "cleanest" way to rewrite my old stuff is that I just kind of miss being able wrap assignment statements in parentheses to kill two bytes with one var. I totally agree that the ++ operator is counterintuitive, but for all it's jankiness, it certainly did take a little of the tedium out of typing into a code editor all day. But I digress (again?!).
Anyway, that's all I've got. I would love to know of any timesavers I'm unaware of, but any thoughts, ideas, or comments are welcome and greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
As far as variable naming conventions go, should iterators be named i or something more semantic like count? If you don't use i, why not? If you feel that i is acceptable, are there cases of iteration where it shouldn't be used?
Depends on the context I suppose. If you where looping through a set of Objects in some
collection then it should be fairly obvious from the context what you are doing.
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
// i is well known here to be the index
objectCollection[i].SomeProperty = someValue;
}
However if it is not immediately clear from the context what it is you are doing, or if you are making modifications to the index you should use a variable name that is more indicative of the usage.
for(int currentRow = 0; currentRow < numRows; currentRow++)
{
for(int currentCol = 0; currentCol < numCols; currentCol++)
{
someTable[currentRow][currentCol] = someValue;
}
}
"i" means "loop counter" to a programmer. There's nothing wrong with it.
Here's another example of something that's perfectly okay:
foreach (Product p in ProductList)
{
// Do something with p
}
I tend to use i, j, k for very localized loops (only exist for a short period in terms of number of source lines). For variables that exist over a larger source area, I tend to use more detailed names so I can see what they're for without searching back in the code.
By the way, I think that the naming convention for these came from the early Fortran language where I was the first integer variable (A - H were floats)?
i is acceptable, for certain. However, I learned a tremendous amount one semester from a C++ teacher I had who refused code that did not have a descriptive name for every single variable. The simple act of naming everything descriptively forced me to think harder about my code, and I wrote better programs after that course, not from learning C++, but from learning to name everything. Code Complete has some good words on this same topic.
i is fine, but something like this is not:
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j < 10; j++)
{
string s = datarow[i][j].ToString(); // or worse
}
}
Very common for programmers to inadvertently swap the i and the j in the code, especially if they have bad eyesight or their Windows theme is "hotdog". This is always a "code smell" for me - it's kind of rare when this doesn't get screwed up.
i is so common that it is acceptable, even for people that love descriptive variable names.
What is absolutely unacceptable (and a sin in my book) is using i,j, or k in any other context than as an integer index in a loop.... e.g.
foreach(Input i in inputs)
{
Process(i);
}
i is definitely acceptable. Not sure what kind of justification I need to make -- but I do use it all of the time, and other very respected programmers do as well.
Social validation, I guess :)
Yes, in fact it's preferred since any programmer reading your code will understand that it's simply an iterator.
What is the value of using i instead of a more specific variable name? To save 1 second or 10 seconds or maybe, maybe, even 30 seconds of thinking and typing?
What is the cost of using i? Maybe nothing. Maybe the code is so simple that using i is fine. But maybe, maybe, using i will force developers who come to this code in the future to have to think for a moment "what does i mean here?" They will have to think: "is it an index, a count, an offset, a flag?" They will have to think: "is this change safe, is it correct, will I be off by 1?"
Using i saves time and intellectual effort when writing code but may end up costing more intellectual effort in the future, or perhaps even result in the inadvertent introduction of defects due to misunderstanding the code.
Generally speaking, most software development is maintenance and extension, so the amount of time spent reading your code will vastly exceed the amount of time spent writing it.
It's very easy to develop the habit of using meaningful names everywhere, and once you have that habit it takes only a few seconds more to write code with meaningful names, but then you have code which is easier to read, easier to understand, and more obviously correct.
I use i for short loops.
The reason it's OK is that I find it utterly implausible that someone could see a declaration of iterator type, with initializer, and then three lines later claim that it's not clear what the variable represents. They're just pretending, because they've decided that "meaningful variable names" must mean "long variable names".
The reason I actually do it, is that I find that using something unrelated to the specific task at hand, and that I would only ever use in a small scope, saves me worrying that I might use a name that's misleading, or ambiguous, or will some day be useful for something else in the larger scope. The reason it's "i" rather than "q" or "count" is just convention borrowed from mathematics.
I don't use i if:
The loop body is not small, or
the iterator does anything other than advance (or retreat) from the start of a range to the finish of the loop:
i doesn't necessarily have to go in increments of 1 so long as the increment is consistent and clear, and of course might stop before the end of the iterand, but if it ever changes direction, or is unmodified by an iteration of the loop (including the devilish use of iterator.insertAfter() in a forward loop), I try to remember to use something different. This signals "this is not just a trivial loop variable, hence this may not be a trivial loop".
If the "something more semantic" is "iterator" then there is no reason not to use i; it is a well understood idiom.
i think i is completely acceptable in for-loop situations. i have always found this to be pretty standard and never really run into interpretation issues when i is used in this instance. foreach-loops get a little trickier and i think really depends on your situation. i rarely if ever use i in foreach, only in for loops, as i find i to be too un-descriptive in these cases. for foreach i try to use an abbreviation of the object type being looped. e.g:
foreach(DataRow dr in datatable.Rows)
{
//do stuff to/with datarow dr here
}
anyways, just my $0.02.
It helps if you name it something that describes what it is looping through. But I usually just use i.
As long as you are either using i to count loops, or part of an index that goes from 0 (or 1 depending on PL) to n, then I would say i is fine.
Otherwise its probably easy to name i something meaningful it its more than just an index.
I should point out that i and j are also mathematical notation for matrix indices. And usually, you're looping over an array. So it makes sense.
As long as you're using it temporarily inside a simple loop and it's obvious what you're doing, sure. That said, is there no other short word you can use instead?
i is widely known as a loop iterator, so you're actually more likely to confuse maintenance programmers if you use it outside of a loop, but if you use something more descriptive (like filecounter), it makes code nicer.
It depends.
If you're iterating over some particular set of data then I think it makes more sense to use a descriptive name. (eg. filecounter as Dan suggested).
However, if you're performing an arbitrary loop then i is acceptable. As one work mate described it to me - i is a convention that means "this variable is only ever modified by the for loop construct. If that's not true, don't use i"
The use of i, j, k for INTEGER loop counters goes back to the early days of FORTRAN.
Personally I don't have a problem with them so long as they are INTEGER counts.
But then I grew up on FORTRAN!
my feeling is that the concept of using a single letter is fine for "simple" loops, however, i learned to use double-letters a long time ago and it has worked out great.
i asked a similar question last week and the following is part of my own answer:// recommended style ● // "typical" single-letter style
●
for (ii=0; ii<10; ++ii) { ● for (i=0; i<10; ++i) {
for (jj=0; jj<10; ++jj) { ● for (j=0; j<10; ++j) {
mm[ii][jj] = ii * jj; ● m[i][j] = i * j;
} ● }
} ● }
in case the benefit isn't immediately obvious: searching through code for any single letter will find many things that aren't what you're looking for. the letter i occurs quite often in code where it isn't the variable you're looking for.
i've been doing it this way for at least 10 years.
note that plenty of people commented that either/both of the above are "ugly"...
I am going to go against the grain and say no.
For the crowd that says "i is understood as an iterator", that may be true, but to me that is the equivalent of comments like 'Assign the value 5 to variable Y. Variable names like comment should explain the why/what not the how.
To use an example from a previous answer:
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
// i is well known here to be the index
objectCollection[i].SomeProperty = someValue;
}
Is it that much harder to just use a meaningful name like so?
for(int objectCollectionIndex = 0; objectCollectionIndex < 10; objectCollectionIndex ++)
{
objectCollection[objectCollectionIndex].SomeProperty = someValue;
}
Granted the (borrowed) variable name objectCollection is pretty badly named too.