The list repetition operator (xx) evaluates the list every time it is repeated. For example,
my #input = get() xx 5;
will evaluate to the first 5 lines of STDIN. Is there any way I can repeat just the value of the element 5 times, rather than evaluating it each time? Currently, I've been assigning it to a variable, then repeating it, but it seems a bit cumbersome that way.
my $firstLine = get();
my #firstlineRepeated = $firstLine xx 5;
Is there a prefix or something that lets me do it in one statement?
Using given to contextualize it into $_ is one fairly neat way:
my #input = ($_ xx 5 given get());
say #input;
That, when I type hello, gives:
[hello hello hello hello hello]
Since given simply contextualizes, rather than doing any kind of definedness or truth test, it's a bit safer as a general pattern than andthen.
You could try use the andthen operator:
my #input = (get() andthen $_ xx 5);
From the documentation:
The andthen operator returns Empty upon encountering the first
undefined argument, otherwise the last argument. Last argument is
returned as-is, without being checked for definedness at all.
Short-circuits. The result of the left side is bound to $_ for the
right side, or passed as arguments if the right side is a Callable,
whose count must be 0 or 1.
Using phrase ENTER works too
my #input = ENTER { get() } xx 5;
Related
X=123
Y=321
TAB1={}
z=1
for n in pairs(_ENV) do
TAB1[z] = n
z=z+1
end
-- did some more steps that removes general _ENV and only left with my script global variables
TAB2={x, y}
print(TAB2[1])
what I want is "123" but I'm getting "x"
I've tried gmatch, gsub, tostring, but I still can't get it to print the value of x (123). it's only printing "x"
**sorry I don't know how to work this text box correctly for my question
Ive tried gmatch, gsub, tostring, but I still can't get it to print the value of x (123). it's only printing "x"
These functions are for string manipulation so I don't see how they'd be useful here. The reason for the lack of "value" is that your loop is for n in pairs(_ENV) do. pairs is just a wrapper for next which returns key and value, but you're currently discarding the value. Simply add a second variable to the for name list: for name, value in pairs(_ENV) do print(value) end. Alternatively, index _ENV using n: print(_ENV[n]) (inside the loop).
The problem here is that I do not understand well the difference between statements and blocks in control flow.
Looking the ternary operator I can use it to assign a variable. But this is an operator, so it is like applying a function--isn't it?
> my $variable = True ?? 34 !! 42;
34
since in the raku documentation says:
if documentation
if
To conditionally run a block of code, use an if followed by a
condition. The condition, an expression, will be evaluated immediately
after the statement before the if finishes. The block attached to the
condition will only be evaluated if the condition means True when
coerced to Bool. Unlike some languages the condition does not have to
be parenthesized, instead the { and } around the block are mandatory:
do documentation
do
The simplest way to run a block where it cannot be a stand-alone statement is by writing do before it:
so this should work in both cases:
> my $variable = do {34};
34
> my $variable = if True {34;} else {43;}
===SORRY!===
Word 'if' interpreted as a listop; please use 'do if' to introduce the statement control word
------> my $variable = if⏏ True {34;} else {43;}
Unexpected block in infix position (two terms in a row)
------> my $variable = if True⏏ {34;} else {43;}
as said in the error I need to add the do:
> my $variable = do if True {34;} else {43;}
34
So the if really does not run the block...or what is the real problem here?
TL;DR: The actual difference is between statement and expression, not statement and block. do is a statement prefix that creates expressions.
if actually creates a statement (anything that is run in Raku is), however, what it's not is an expression. do is a statement prefix, and what it does is turn statements into expressions.
However, if is not really a first-class function that you can assign to a variable or handle around. Whenever you find pieces of syntax such as that one (or for, for instance), you need to prefix them with do to "expressionify" them.
say &say.^name;# OUTPUT: «Sub» say &do.^name; # OUTPUT: «===SORRY!=== Error while compiling <tmp>Undeclared routine:...
say &if.^name; # OUTPUT: «===SORRY!=== Error while compiling <tmp>Undeclared routine: if used at line 1»
So if, by itself, does not create a block, it does not create an expression, it simply creates a statement. You need to precede it with do if you want it to actually turn it into a expression. It does run the block that's behind it, however.
Let's go back to the original question, statements and blocks. Blocks are objects, first-class citizens. You can use them, apply them, pass them around.
my &ifs = { if $_ {34} else {43}};
ifs(True).say; # OUTPUT: «34»
Statements are throwaway blocks you simply run. In some cases, they are also expressions: they yield a result which, then, you can assign.
my &ifs = { if $_ {34} else {43}};
my $result = ifs(True).say; # OUTPUT: «34»
say $result; # OUTPUT: «True»
The ifs(True).say statement prints to output, it also produces a result that can be assigned. All three lines are also statements, and as a matter of fact, expressions too.
Some control structures, however, do not create expressions.
Some others do; for creates a expression; while does not.
if is an example of this. They don't produce a result. You use them for the side effects: running a statement (if true) or another (if not). You might turn them into a block, as above, and pass them around. Or you can just precede them with do and make them produce a throwaway result, which you can then use.
So it will very much depend on your actual use case. You can surround the if statement with curly braces and create a block; or you can simply use the result creating an expression. Or you might want to use it just for the side effects, doing nothing.
New to elm here, and at first it's driving me absolutely crazy not knowing the ins and outs of this picky language (even after reading a sh**load about it because it's just so different and finicky... I guess that's the nature of a functional lang) so when you try doing a simple thing it's like pulling hair at first.
I am getting the following error:
The right side of (==) is causing a type mismatch.
29| get 0 arrayOfValues == 'X'
^^^
(==) is expecting the right side to be a:
Maybe Char
But the right side is:
Char
Hint: With operators like (==) I always check the left side first. If it seems
fine, I assume it is correct and check the right side. So the problem may be in
how the left and right arguments interact.
Test:
it "blah blah blah" <|
let
someArray =
[ 'P', ' ' ]
in
expect (MyModule.doSomething someArray 'P') to equal 1
MyModule
doSomething : List Char -> Char -> Int
doSomething arrayOfValues symbol =
let
grid =
fromList arrayOfValues
found =
get 0 arrayOfValues == symbol
in
if found then
1
else
0
Now I'm assuming but not sure, that it's getting Nothing or something when trying to pull the first value out of my array but not sure. Maybe Char I assume is returning Nothing? donno, probably have other issues going on with it too.
I'd like to get the code above working, then refactor..I'm sure there's probably a more elegant way to code what I've coded above but first thing's first, fixing this error and understanding it better with the existing code. The error message while nice isn't that obvious to me as to how and what to handle. I have assumptions but not fully sure how to handle the behavior here of whatever is causing the issue.
Unique feature of the elm is certainty. Any variable (which is not of type maybe) will have a value of the defined type for sure.
But when it comes to array or list, it becomes uncertain if the array has an element on index "i". There may be an element and there may not be.
Hence elm has concept of Maybe,
so conceptually
Maybe String = [ Just "string_value" | Nothing ]
the alias for the Array.get is
get : Int -> Array a -> Maybe a
it takes
Int - index and
Array a - array of data type of array element
as parameters and returns
Maybe a - again a is the data type of array element
consider an example
array =
fromList ["one", "two"]
val1 =
get 0 array -- will return 'Just "one"'
val2 =
get 3 array -- will return 'Nothing', since the element does not exists
this way you will always have to handle both the situations, when you have a value and when you don't
case val1 of
Nothing ->
-- Raise some error message
Just val ->
-- `val` is the actual element/value found
and if you always need a default value, you can use
Maybe.withDefault "default_string" val1
this will always return a string value and will return "default_string" when the value is nothing otherwise the actual found value
Could someone explain why this accesses the last element in Perl 6
#array[*-1]
and why we need the asterisk *?
Isn't it more logical to do something like this:
#array[-1]
The user documentation explains that *-1 is just a code object, which could also be written as
-> $n { $n - 1 }
When passed to [ ], it will be invoked with the array size as argument to compute the index.
So instead of just being able to start counting backwards from the end of the array, you could use it to eg count forwards from its center via
#array[* div 2] #=> middlemost element
#array[* div 2 + 1] #=> next element after the middlemost one
According to the design documents, the reason for outlawing negative indices (which could have been accepted even with the above generalization in place) is this:
The Perl 6 semantics avoids indexing discontinuities (a source of subtle runtime errors), and provides ordinal access in both directions at both ends of the array.
If you don't like the whatever-star, you can also do:
my $last-elem = #array.tail;
or even
my ($second-last, $last) = #array.tail(2);
Edit: Of course, there's also a head method:
my ($first, $second) = #array.head(2);
The other two answers are excellent. My only reason for answering was to add a little more explanation about the Whatever Star * array indexing syntax.
The equivalent of Perl 6's #array[*-1] syntax in Perl 5 would be $array[ scalar #array - 1]. In Perl 5, in scalar context an array returns the number of items it contains, so scalar #array gives you the length of the array. Subtracting one from this gives you the last index of the array.
Since in Perl 6 indices can be restricted to never be negative, if they are negative then they are definitely out of range. But in Perl 5, a negative index may or may not be "out of range". If it is out of range, then it only gives you an undefined value which isn't easy to distinguish from simply having an undefined value in an element.
For example, the Perl 5 code:
use v5.10;
use strict;
use warnings;
my #array = ('a', undef, 'c');
say $array[-1]; # 'c'
say $array[-2]; # undefined
say $array[-3]; # 'a'
say $array[-4]; # out of range
say "======= FINISHED =======";
results in two nearly identical warnings, but still finishes running:
c
Use of uninitialized value $array[-2] in say at array.pl line 7.
a
Use of uninitialized value in say at array.pl line 9.
======= FINISHED =======
But the Perl 6 code
use v6;
my #array = 'a', Any, 'c';
put #array[*-1]; # evaluated as #array[2] or 'c'
put #array[*-2]; # evaluated as #array[1] or Any (i.e. undefined)
put #array[*-3]; # evaluated as #array[0] or 'a'
put #array[*-4]; # evaluated as #array[-1], which is a syntax error
put "======= FINISHED =======";
will likewise warn about the undefined value being used, but it fails upon the use of an index that comes out less than 0:
c
Use of uninitialized value #array of type Any in string context.
Methods .^name, .perl, .gist, or .say can be used to stringify it to something meaningful.
in block <unit> at array.p6 line 5
a
Effective index out of range. Is: -1, should be in 0..Inf
in block <unit> at array.p6 line 7
Actually thrown at:
in block <unit> at array.p6 line 7
Thus your Perl 6 code can more robust by not allowing negative indices, but you can still index from the end using the Whatever Star syntax.
last word of advice
If you just need the last few elements of an array, I'd recommend using the tail method mentioned in mscha's answer. #array.tail(3) is much more self-explanatory than #array[*-3 .. *-1].
Learning elm but don't get what author means by the below:
The reason we can avoid writing the parenthesis is because function
application associates to the left.
Any values or functions, specified after the function name, will be associated with the function as it's arguments automatically, that's really all it means.
In language, like JavaScript, you can explicitly distinguish the usage of a function, as an expression:
function foo (message) {
return message
}
console.log(foo) // Function as expression.
console.log(foo('Hello')) // Function application with result: "Hello"
In Elm this behaviour does not require parentesis.
foo message =
message
foo -- Function as expression.
foo "Hello" -- Function application with result: "Hello"
It's not like in JavaScript at all, when you want to apply the function and do something with result. Here you will have to tell the compiler explicitly, that (foo "Hello") is a single argument for String.toUpper
String.toUpper (foo "Hello") -- "HELLO"
The parentheses in question is ((divide 5) 2). My interpretation of that sentence is that you can write ((divide 5) 2) as divide 5 2 because divide 5 2 is evaluated from the left first, i.e. divide 5 -> divide5 then divide5 2 -> 2.5.
Though I can't see how else it could be evaluated! Neither 5 2 nor divide 2 then divide2 5 make sense.