Today, I was looking for a long time on the page http://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/generated/pandas.DataFrame.html , trying to find something very simple: an attribute or method that would retrieve the index from the DataFrame. It doesn't show any. I scanned the page many times, as well as doing text searches through it.
Then, of course, I came to stackoverflow and got the answer almost immediately: DataFrame.index is the attribute.
Obviously, in the future, I want to be able to trust the documentation and not waste time like today. So my question is: Is there an online source of complete documentation on Pandas objects/classes (besides reading its code) that doesn't omit any attributes/methods/etc? Thanks.
Read 10 minutes to pandas. The third section makes use of the .index attribute.
See also the tutorials section of the docs.
IMO both online documentation and docstring help is very good for specific methods, that said it's difficult to be better than Google/StackOverflow for finding the answer to specific questions...
Related
I was reading some interesting questions about the topic "Can we make a program that, given a particular sequence, produces the next terms", like this one, and I really like the detailed answer of this one. I understand that the answer is "That's impossible without more restrictions", and that given some restrictions (polynomials, rational function or boolean map) we know some good algorithms, as the second answer I linked explains.
Now, a natural question is how much can we solve, trying our best even if we can't always solve it, to answer the original, general question. What I usually do when facing a hard sequence is trying to see if it's in OEIS, and if it seems to be there, seeing if there is any formula or algorithm to produce it in there. You can download a small version of OEIS with the first terms of each sequence, and you can make queries to find formulas or maple algorithms for a particular sequence. My question is, do you think it's feasible to download a small version of OEIS that includes, with the first terms, a little algorithm to produce it?
The natural problem here is that I haven't seen any link to download the entire database of OEIS with all the details, which maybe deserves its own question. Even if we had this, you need to read the formulas/algorithms (that can be written in different languages, from what I've seen) and interpret them correctly. But I thought maybe someone here knows how to solve this, in any case thanks in advance.
You could, as you note, download the sequences and their A-numbers from the link mentioned here: https://oeis.org/wiki/Welcome#Compressed_Versions
After searching that and finding one sequence (or a small number of sequences) of interest, you could scrape the respective page(s) for formulas. There are specific fields for Maple and Mathematica, which may be helpful, and otherwise, an entry in the PROGRAM field should include identifying information when it is not one of the standard languages with its own field in the database. See: http://oeis.org/wiki/Style_Sheet
Unofficially, but with the interests of the OEIS in mind, I would not recommend trying to download or scrape the OEIS in its entirety. Whether it's one person, or a whole host of people, we would certainly recommend using the compressed version of the database to identify sequences of interest by A-number first, then pulling their entire entry by scraping the site or querying the OEIS using methods that you have already mentioned: Programmatic access to On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences
If this sounds laborious, perhaps an alternative is the Wolfram Cloud, which actives this through other means. For example, you can navigate to the cloud (you may have to register just to get access) at: https://www.wolframcloud.com/
Typing in something like FindSequenceFunction[{1, 2, 3, 5, 17, 305, 34865}] will give you a formula, if Wolfram/Mathematica can find one. The documentation for FindSequenceFunction can be found here: https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/FindSequenceFunction.html
Wolfram/Mathematica can also invoke the OEIS using packages like the one described here: https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/40/is-it-possible-to-invoke-the-oeis-from-mathematica
I know that continuous query is a query which is registered once and it is evaluated continuously over a data stream. But, I don't understand what does incremental query means. I am reading about continuous data streams and the way we query for a specific pattern in the stream.
Can anyone explain me - what is an incremental query? Explanation with an example will be really helpful
Although after googling a lot, I find some definitions, but none of them explains clearly.
UPDATE:
I don't find the exact paper now in which I found this term, but in this paper I can find it on page no. 6.
You might already have researched incremental algorithm, I think it is what you're looking for.
I have never heard of an 'incremental' query. However that sounds a lot like doctrine's schema update command here in symfony's doc
Food for thought until someone come up with a better answer :)
I am struggling with the AtTask API. Specifically, I'm finding the documentation to be confusing and the examples to be very limited. For instance, the API supports "Named Queries" but there seems to be no listing or documentation of them. One point says that they are listed under "Actions" in the API Explorer, but I find very little there, and the named query that is used in the example "myWork" is not listed.
Can anyone point me to better documentation or examples? I can muddle through by trial and error, writing all my own queries, but it would be nice to know if there is already a Named Query that does what I need to do. For Instance, I need to get a list of assigned tasks. myWork returns a list of tasks that have already started, but I also need the work requests.
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Mark
There is no question that the AtTask documentation is very weak and that undocumented features exist. Very frustrating. One thing that does help sometimes is to call the meta data for an object.
To view a tasks meta data go to cl02.attask-ondemand.com/attask/api/v4.0/task/metadata
Then just copy and paste the result on this page http://json.parser.online.fr/
It's not the best, but I found a few undocumented features that way.
Regarding getting a list of assigned tasks, I would consider just querying the tasks object with a user ID set as the search critera. Something like
cl02.attask-ondemand.com/attask/api/v4.0/task/search?method=get&assignedToID=5419c3e90001c026e1b72b7014e8e694
Is there a way to search the web which does NOT remove punctuation? For example, I want to search for window.window->window (Yes, I actually do, this is a structure in mozilla plugins). I figure that this HAS to be a fairly rare string.
Unfortunately, Google, Bing, AltaVista, Yahoo, and Excite all strip the punctuation and just show anything with the word "window" in it. And according to Google, on their site, at least, there is NO WAY AROUND IT.
In general, searching for chunks of code must be hard for this reason... anyone have any hints?
google codesearch ("window.window->window" but it doesn't seem to get any relevant result out of this request)
There is similar tools all over the internet like codase or koders but I'm not sure they let you search exactly this string. Anyway they might be useful to you so I think they're worth mentioning.
edit: It is very unlikely you'll find a general purpose search engine which will allow you to search for something like "window.window->window" because most search engines will do some processing on the document before storing it. For instance they might represent it internally as vectors of words (a vector space model) and use that to do the search, not the actual original string. And creating such a vector involves first cutting the document according to punctuation and other critters. This is a very complex and interesting subject which I can't tell you much more about. My bad memory did a pretty good job since I studied it at school!
BTW they might do the same kind of processing on your query too. You might want to read about tf-idf which is probably light years from what google and his friends are doing but can give you a hint about what happens to your query.
There is no way to do that, by itself in the main Google engine, as you discovered -- however, if you are looking for information about Mozilla then the best bet would be to structure your query something more like this:
"window.window->window" +Mozilla
OR +XUL
+ Another search string related to what you are
trying to do.
SymbolHound is a web search that does not remove punctuation from the queries. There is an option to search source code repositories (like the now-discontinued Google Code Search), but it also has the option to search the Internet for special characters. (primarily programming-related sites such as StackOverflow).
try it here: http://www.symbolhound.com
-Tom (co-founder)
I've always hated comments that fill half the screen with asterisks just to tell you that the function returns a string, I never read those comments.
However, I do read comments that describe why something is done and how it's done (usually the single line comments in the code); those come in really handy when trying to understand someone else's code.
But when it comes to writing comments, I don't write that, rather, I use comments only when writing algorithms in programming contests, I'd think of how the algorithm will do what it does then I'd write each one in a comment, then write the code that corresponds to that comment.
An example would be:
//loop though all the names from n to j - 1
Other than that I can't imagine why anyone would waste valuable time writing comments when he could be writing code.
Am I right or wrong? Am I missing something? What other good use cases of comments am I not aware of?
Comments should express why you are doing something not what you are doing
It's an old adage, but a good metric to use is:
Comment why you're doing something, not how you're doing it.
Saying "loop through all the names from n to j-1" should be immediately clear to even a novice programmer from the code alone. Giving the reason why you're doing that can help with readability.
If you use something like Doxygen, you can fully document your return types, arguments, etc. and generate a nice "source code manual." I often do this for clients so that the team that inherits my code isn't entirely lost (or forced to review every header).
Documentation blocks are often overdone, especially is strongly typed languages. It makes a lot more sense to be verbose with something like Python or PHP than C++ or Java. That said, it's still nice to do for methods & members that aren't self explanatory (not named update, for instance).
I've been saved many hours of thinking, simply by commenting what I'd want to tell myself if I were reading my code for the first time. More narrative and less observation. Comments should not only help others, but yourself as well... especially if you haven't touched it in five years. I have some ten year old Perl that I wrote and I still don't know what it does anymore.
Something very dirty, that I've done in PHP & Python, is use reflection to retrieve comment blocks and label elements in the user interface. It's a use case, albeit nasty.
If using a bug tracker, I'll also drop the bug ID near my changes, so that I have a reference back to the tracker. This is in addition to a brief description of the change (inline change logs).
I also violate the "only comment why not what" rule when I'm doing something that my colleagues rarely see... or when subtlety is important. For instance:
for (int i = 50; i--; ) cout << i; // looping from 49..0 in reverse
for (int i = 50; --i; ) cout << i; // looping from 49..1 in reverse
I use comments in the following situations:
High-level API documentation comments, i.e. what is this class or function for?
Commenting the "why".
A short, high-level summary of what a much longer block of code does. The key word here is summary. If someone wants more detail, the code should be clear enough that they can get it from the code. The point here is to make it easy for someone browsing the code to figure out where some piece of logic is without having to wade through the details of how it's performed. Ideally these cases should be factored out into separate functions instead, but sometimes it's just not do-able because the function would have 15 parameters and/or not be nameable.
Pointing out subtleties that are visible from reading the code if you're really paying attention, but don't stand out as much as they should given their importance.
When I have a good reason why I need to do something in a hackish way (performance, etc.) and can't write the code more clearly instead of using a comment.
Comment everything that you think is not straightforward and you won't be able to understand the next time you see your code.
It's not a bad idea to record what you think your code should be achieving (especially if the code is non-intuitive, if you want to keep comments down to a minimum) so that someone reading it a later date, has an easier time when debugging/bugfixing. Although one of the most frustrating things to encounter in reading someone else's code is cases where the code has been updated, but not the comments....
I've always hated comments that fill half the screen with asterisks just to tell you that the function returns a string, I never read those comments.
Some comments in that vein, not usually with formatting that extreme, actually exist to help tools like JavaDoc and Doxygen generate documentation for your code. This, I think, is a good form of comment, because it has both a human- and machine-readable format for documentation (so the machine can translate it to other, more useful formats like HTML), puts the documentation close to the code that it documents (so that if the code changes, the documentation is more likely to be updated to reflect these changes), and generally gives a good (and immediate) explanation to someone new to a large codebase of why a particular function exists.
Otherwise, I agree with everything else that's been stated. Comment why, and only comment when it's not obvious. Other than Doxygen comments, my code generally has very few comments.
Another type of comment that is generally useless is:
// Commented out by Lumpy Cheetosian on 1/17/2009
...uh, OK, the source control system would have told me that. What it won't tell me is WHY Lumpy commented out this seemingly necessary piece of code. Since Lumpy is located in Elbonia, I won't be able to find out until Monday when they all return from the Snerkrumph holiday festival.
Consider your audience, and keep the noise level down. If your comments include too much irrelevant crap, developers will just ignore them in practice.
BTW: Javadoc (or Doxygen, or equiv.) is a Good Thing(tm), IMHO.
I also use comments to document where a specific requirement came from. That way the developer later can look at the requirement that caused the code to be like it was and, if the new requirement conflicts with the other requirment get that resolved before breaking an existing process. Where I work requirments can often come from different groups of people who may not be aware of other requirements then system must meet. We also get frequently asked why we are doing a certain thing a certain way for a particular client and it helps to be able to research to know what requests in our tracking system caused the code to be the way it is. This can also be done on saving the code in the source contol system, but I consider those notes to be comments as well.
Reminds me of
Real programmers don't write documentation
I wrote this comment a while ago, and it's saved me hours since:
// NOTE: the close-bracket above is NOT the class Items.
// There are multiple classes in this file.
// I've already wasted lots of time wondering,
// "why does this new method I added at the end of the class not exist?".