I want to create 16 directories in Erlang.
for ( create_dir("work/p" ++ A, where A is an element in a list [0, 1, ... f]) (sixteen number in hex notation).
I could of course write sixteen lines like: mkdir ("work/p0"), mkdir("work/p1") etc.
I have looked at lists:foreach. In the examples fun is used, is possible to define a function outside the loop and call it?
I am new to Erlang and used to C++ etc.
Yes, it's possible to define a (named) function outside the call to lists:foreach/2. Why would you, though? This is a case when an anonymous function is incredibly handy:
lists:foreach(fun(N) ->
file:make_dir(
filename:join("work", "p"++integer_to_list(N, 16)))
end, lists:seq(0, 15)).
The filename:join/2 call will use the appropriate directory separator to construct the string work/pN, where N is an integer in hex representation constructed using integer_to_list/2, which converts an integer to a string (list) in a given base (16).
lists:seq/2 is a friendly little function that returns the list [A,A+1,A+2,...,B-1,B] given A and B.
Note that you could just as well have used the list comprehension syntax here, but since we're applying functions to a list for the side-effects alone, I chose to stick with a foreach.
If you really want to define a separate function -- let's call it foo and assume it takes 42 arguments -- you can refer to it as fun foo/42 in your code. This expression evaluates to a function object that, like an anonymous function defined inline, can be passed to lists:foreach/2.
Related
Given a list of arbitrary objects
input = listOf(a, b, c, a)
... is there a function (with one non-collection argument) in the Kotlin standard library that I can use to make a copy of this list, removing all instances of ONE object?
Something like:
val filtered = input.removeAllInstancesOf(a)
To clarify, I'm aware of other (potential) solutions to this task:
Using the filter function to do this. → val output = input.filterNot { it == a }
Using the minus function with a collection → val output = input.minus(listOf(a))
Using the minus function with a non-collection argument → val output = input.minus(a) ← Only removes the first instance of a!
Removing all instances from a mutable list.
Writing such a function. → Wrap any of the above.
... but I'm wondering why I can't find a function which takes just ONE, non-collection value.
but I'm wondering why I can't find a function which takes just ONE, non-collection value.
Because that's a hyper-specific use-case of the already existing filter function. As you yourself showed it can be done in one line, and is probably the first thing a Kotlin dev would try to do (at least I would). So adding new function to the standard library probably doesn't add much value.
I'm new to Lua and trying to understand the concept of OOP in Lua. To do so, I've tried creating an object and creating methods and "private variables". My issue is when I try to use "setters" or "getters", it's indicating that my tables are returning NIL which means I'm either having a scoping issue or something else I can't figure out.
The kicker is I'm using an example from an online Lua coding tutorial, and when I run the tutorial it works flawlessly. However, when I run mine, I get NIL or nothing outputs whenever I try to "get" or return a value from one of the member functions.
I'm using a couple of different environments:
ZeroBrain
Sublime Text
Lua for Windows
Do you know why my code is not returning populated tables?
newPlayer = function(n, h, a, r)
player = {}
n = n or ""
h = h or 100
a = a or 100
r = r or 0
function player:getPlayerName()
return n
end
function player:getPlayerHealth()
return h
end
function player:getPlayerArmor()
return a
end
function player:getPlayerRank()
return r
end
function player:setPlayerName(arg)
n = arg
end
function player:setPlayerHealth(arg)
h = arg
end
function player:setPlayerArmor(arg)
a = arg
end
function player:setPlayerRank(arg)
r = arg
end
function player:connect(arg)
print(string.format(" %s joined" , arg))
end
return player
end
player1 = newPlayer("John", 100, 100, 1000)
player1.getPlayerName()
Your code does not contain "populated tables" to return.
Your newPlayer function does create a table, and it does return it. It creates a number of functions within that table. But that's all newPlayer does: creates a table and puts some functions in it.
The data accessed by those functions is not part of the table. n, h, a, and r (BTW, please use better variable names) are all local variables. Your inner functions will access the specific stack containing those variables, but the variables themselves will not be magically associated with the table.
Your principle problem is almost certainly with the setters. And it comes from a combination of this:
function player:setPlayerName(arg)
with this:
player1.getPlayerName()
When you create a function using a : character between a table name and the function's name, you are using syntactic sugar for a function which implicitly takes as its first argument a value called self. As the name suggests, this is supposed to represent the object which this function is being called upon. So your function creation code is equivalent to:
function player.setPlayerName(self, arg)
Since you create all of your functions with :, all of your functions take at least one parameter.
The : syntax can also be used when calling such functions. If you did player1:getPlayerName(), this would cause the table you accessed to find the getPlayerName function to be used as the first argument in the function call. So that line would be equivalent to player1.getPlayerName(player1).
Obviously, these two syntaxes are mirrors of one another: functions created with : take a parameter that is expected to refer to the table it is being called on, and functions called with : will be given the table which was accessed to get that function.
But... your code didn't stick to the symmetry. You created the functions with :, but you call them with .
Now, you get functions are able to get away with this because... well, none of your values are actually part of the table. So your get functions just return the local value that they adopted from their creating context.
The set functions pose a problem. See, they take a parameter. But because the function was declared with :, they really take two parameters, the first being the implicit self.
Now, : syntax is just syntactic sugar; it's just a convenient way to do what you could have done yourself. So it is in theory OK to call a function with . even if you created it with :. But if you do so, you must pass the table as the first parameter. Though your code doesn't show it, I strongly suspect you didn't do that.
If you called player1.setPlayerName("foo"), what will happen is that the implicit self parameter will get the value "foo", and the arg parameter will be nil. And you will assign that nil value to the n local variable. So subsequent calls to player1.getPlayerName() will return nil.
Basically, what's going on here is that you're combining two different ways of creating objects in Lua. You stored your private data in a way that external code cannot access (ie: local upvalues), but that data is now no longer part of the table itself. Which means that, although you dutifully create those functions with : syntax to indicate that they take a self table, they never actually use that table. And because they never use the table, it's a lot harder to figure out what's going wrong.
Basically, the key here is to be symmetrical. If you create a function with :, then you should either call it with : or make sure to pass it the object table as the first parameter.
Broadly speaking, the standard way to create private members is by convention, not by forbidding it. That is, you agree not to mess with any members of a table other than those with certain names. Python convention is to pretend that names starting with _ don't exist, and Lua programs sometimes use that.
Upvalues are an interesting solution for private variables, but they do come with problems. If you want to invent a member variable, you have to do it in a centralized place rather than wherever you might need one. Even if the variable is optional, you have to create a named local at the top of the function.
TLDR of Nicol's answer, see my answer to another question:
function player:setPlayerArmor(arg)
a = arg
end
The : syntax is syntactic sugar. It creates an implicit 'self' argument when declared, and when used. If you declare it one way and use it another, the arguments won't be what you're expecting. Say your player has 100 health. Look at this result:
player1.setPlayerHealth(55, 66)
print(player1.getPlayerHealth())
-- will display '66', not '55' because `:` declares implicit 'self' argument
This displays 66 because the setPlayerHealth function has an implicit 'self' parameter because it was declared with :. If you instead called it
with the ::
player1:setPlayerHealth(55, 66)
print(player1:getPlayerHealth())
-- will display '55' because `:` passes player1 as self
function player:setHealth1(arg)
-- implicit 'self' argument refers to player1 when called on player1
end
-- is the same as
function player.setHealth2(self, arg)
-- with `.` notation, you need to add the 'self' argument explicitly
end
player1.setHealth1(31) -- self argument will be 31 and arg will be nil
player1.setHealth2(32) -- self argument will be 32 and arg will be nil
player1:setHealth1(33) -- self argument will be player1 and arg will be 33
player1:setHealth2(34) -- self argument will be player1 and arg will be 34
I am a newbie in Kotlin, I just started to learn it,
I get the following code example about literal/high order function:
fun myHigherOrderFun(functionArg: (Int)->String) = functionArg(5)
println ( myHigherOrderFun { "The Number is $it" })
prints "The Number is 5"
Which I have difficulty to understand: the function myHigherOrderFun get a lambda function as parameter but i can't understand, where is the (Int) input parameter? I see is passed in functionArg(5)... but i can't realize how is possible that?
Thanks in advance.
To start from the beginning, in Kotlin functions are first-class types, just like numbers and Strings and stuff. So a function can take another function as a parameter, and/or return a function as its result. A function which does this is called a ‘higher-order function’.
And that's what you have in your example! The line:
fun myHigherOrderFun(functionArg: (Int)->String) = functionArg(5)
defines myHigherOrderFun() as a function which takes one parameter, which is itself a function taking a single Int parameter and returning a String. (myHigherOrderFun() doesn't specify an explicit return type, so it's inferred to be a String too.)
The next line is probably where things are less clear:
println(myHigherOrderFun{ "The Number is $it" })
The first non-obvious thing is that it's calling myHigherOrderFun() with a parameter. Because that parameter is a lambda, Kotlin lets you omit the usual (…), and use only the braces.
The other non-obvious thing is the lambda itself: { "The Number is $it" }. This is a literal function taking one parameter (of unspecified type).
Normally, you'd have to specify any parameters explicitly, e.g.: { a: Char, b: Int -> /* … */ }. But if there's exactly one parameter, and you aren't specifying its type, then you can skip that and just refer to the parameter as it. That's what's happening here.
(If the lambda didn't reference it, then it would be a function taking no parameters at all.)
And because the lambda is being passed to something expecting a function taking an Int parameter, Kotlin knows that it must be an Int, which is why we can get away without specifying that.
So, Kotlin passes that lambda to the myHigherOrderFun(), which executes the lambda, passing 5 as it. That interpolates it into a string, which it returns as the argument to println().
Many lambdas take a single parameter, so it gets used quite a lot in Kotlin; it's more concise (and usually more readable) than the alternative. See the docs for more info.
You can read this on AutoCAD knowledge website:
"Note: You can define multiple user functions with the same name, but have each definition accept a different number or type of arguments."
Has anybody using this feature? I tried but does not work at all.
I can call only the latest defined function.If I call like this (file::AppendFile arg1) then autocad said I give too less argument
I'm not at a computer with AutoCAD installed, so I can't check if AutoLISP works the way the documentation says it should, but I do know I've seen a workaround to pass a variable number of arguments into a function.
The trick is to pass all your arguments as a single list, and then process that list in the body of the function. For example:
(defun myFunction (argsList / path header)
(setq path (car argsList))
(setq header (cadr argsList))
(someFunction path "a" header)
)
... and then you'd call your function with (myFunction '("arg1")) or with (myFunction '("arg1" "arg2")).
Note that in my examples above I'm using the list constructor literal, so it will pass in the actual strings "arg1" and "arg2". If you want to pass in the contents of variables, you'd need to use the form (myFunction (list var1 var2)) instead, because (myfunction '(var1 var2)) would pass in the symbols 'var1 and 'var2 instead of their values.
It's a little bit ugly, but it's an option.
"Note: You can define multiple user functions with the same name, but have each definition accept a different number or type of arguments."
This is not possible in AutoLISP: the last defun expression evaluated will overwrite all previous definitions of the symbol in the namespace - hence, in your example the file:AppendFile function would require two arguments, as the second defun expression will immediately redefine the function.
The only way to supply two arguments (other than supplying a list of arguments of varying length) would be to evaluate the file:AppendFile function prior to the evaluation of the second defun expression.
Is currying for functional programming the same as overloading for OO programming? If not, why? (with examples if possible)
Tks
Currying is not specific to functional programming, and overloading is not specific to object-oriented programming.
"Currying" is the use of functions to which you can pass fewer arguments than required to obtain a function of the remaining arguments. i.e. if we have a function plus which takes two integer arguments and returns their sum, then we can pass the single argument 1 to plus and the result is a function for adding 1 to things.
In Haskellish syntax (with function application by adjacency):
plusOne = plusCurried 1
three = plusOne 2
four = plusCurried 2 2
five = plusUncurried 2 3
In vaguely Cish syntax (with function application by parentheses):
plusOne = plusCurried(1)
three = plusOne(2)
four = plusCurried(2)(2)
five = plusUncurried(2, 3)
You can see in both of these examples that plusCurried is invoked on only 1 argument, and the result is something that can be bound to a variable and then invoked on another argument. The reason that you're thinking of currying as a functional-programming concept is that it sees the most use in functional languages whose syntax has application by adjacency, because in that syntax currying becomes very natural. The applications of plusCurried and plusUncurried to define four and five in the Haskellish syntax merge to become completely indistinguishable, so you can just have all functions be fully curried always (i.e. have every function be a function of exactly one argument, only some of them will return other functions that can then be applied to more arguments). Whereas in the Cish syntax with application by parenthesised argument lists, the definitions of four and five look completely different, so you need to distinguish between plusCurried and plusUncurried. Also, the imperative languages that led to today's object-oriented languages never had the ability to bind functions to variables or pass them to other functions (this is known as having first-class functions), and without that facility there's nothing you can actually do with a curried-function other than invoke it on all arguments, and so no point in having them. Some of today's OO languages still don't have first-class functions, or only gained them recently.
The term currying also refers to the process of turning a function of multiple arguments into one that takes a single argument and returns another function (which takes a single argument, and may return another function which ...), and "uncurrying" can refer to the process of doing the reverse conversion.
Overloading is an entirely unrelated concept. Overloading a name means giving multiple definitions with different characteristics (argument types, number of arguments, return type, etc), and have the compiler resolve which definition is meant by a given appearance of the name by the context in which it appears.
A fairly obvious example of this is that we could define plus to add integers, but also use the same name plus for adding floating point numbers, and we could potentially use it for concatenating strings, arrays, lists, etc, or to add vectors or matrices. All of these have very different implementations that have nothing to do with each other as far as the language implementation is concerned, but we just happened to give them the same name. The compiler is then responsible for figuring out that plus stringA stringB should call the string plus (and return a string), while plus intX intY should call the integer plus (and return an integer).
Again, there is no inherent reason why this concept is an "OO concept" rather than a functional programming concept. It simply happened that it fit quite naturally in statically typed object-oriented languages that were developed; if you're already resolving which method to call by the object that the method is invoked on, then it's a small stretch to allow more general overloading. Completely ad-hoc overloading (where you do nothing more than define the same name multiple times and trust the compiler to figure it out) doesn't fit as nicely in languages with first-class functions, because when you pass the overloaded name as a function itself you don't have the calling context to help you figure out which definition is intended (and programmers may get confused if what they really wanted was to pass all the overloaded definitions). Haskell developed type classes as a more principled way of using overloading; these effectively do allow you to pass all the overloaded definitions at once, and also allow the type system to express types a bit like "any type for which the functions f and g are defined".
In summary:
currying and overloading are completely unrelated
currying is about applying functions to fewer arguments than they require in order to get a function of the remaining arguments
overloading is about providing multiple definitions for the same name and having the compiler select which definition is used each time the name is used
neither currying nor overloading are specific to either functional programming or object-oriented programming; they each simply happen to be more widespread in historical languages of one kind or another because of the way the languages developed, causing them to be more useful or more obvious in one kind of language
No, they are entirely unrelated and dissimilar.
Overloading is a technique for allowing the same code to be used at different types -- often known in functional programming as polymorphism (of various forms).
A polymorphic function:
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
map f [] = []
map f (x:xs) = f x : map f xs
Here, map is a function that operates on any list. It is polymorphic -- it works just as well with a list of Int as a list of trees of hashtables. It also is higher-order, in that it is a function that takes a function as an argument.
Currying is the transformation of a function that takes a structure of n arguments, into a chain of functions each taking one argument.
In curried languages, you can apply any function to some of its arguments, yielding a function that takes the rest of the arguments. The partially-applied function is a closure.
And you can transform a curried function into an uncurried one (and vice-versa) by applying the transformation invented by Curry and Schonfinkel.
curry :: ((a, b) -> c) -> a -> b -> c
-- curry converts an uncurried function to a curried function.
uncurry :: (a -> b -> c) -> (a, b) -> c
-- uncurry converts a curried function to a function on pairs.
Overloading is having multiple functions with the same name, having different parameters.
Currying is where you can take multiple parameters, and selectively set some, so you may just have one variable, for example.
So, if you have a graphing function in 3 dimensions, you may have:
justgraphit(double[] x, double[] y, double[] z), and you want to graph it.
By currying you could have:
var fx = justgraphit(xlist)(y)(z) where you have now set fx so that it now has two variables.
Then, later on, the user picks another axis (date) and you set the y, so now you have:
var fy = fx(ylist)(z)
Then, later you graph the information by just looping over some data and the only variability is the z parameter.
This makes complicated functions simpler as you don't have to keep passing what is largely set variables, so the readability increases.