What's the best way to find out what's causing unsolved metas? Is there a way to turn all unsolved metas (and only the unsolved ones) into holes, by expanding all the surrounding wildcards that are solvable?
If nothing else, does changing an unsolved meta into a hole make the message about the unsolved meta go away? Because then I guess I can try to change every wildcard and every implicit argument into holes until the message goes away and then figure out which one is causing the problems...
One approach (not necessarily the best) is to replace all implicit
arguments with explicit underscores:
f {_} {_} {_} (x {_} {_} {_})
This answer is from the Agda mailing list: https://lists.chalmers.se/pipermail/agda/2012/004123.html
Related
Using the defined-or operator ( // ) in a function call produces the result I'd expect:
say( 'nan'.Int // 42); # OUTPUT: «42»
However, using the lower-precedence orelse operator instead throws an error:
say( 'nan'.Int orelse 42);
# OUTPUT: «Error: Unable to parse expression in argument list;
# couldn't find final ')'
# (corresponding starter was at line 1)»
What am I missing about how precedence works?
(Or is the error a bug and I'm just overthinking this?)
I'd say, it's a grammar bug, as
say ("nan".Int orelse 42); # 42
works.
TL;DR My super useful naanswer (not-an-answer / non-authoritative answer / food for thought) is it might be a bug or it might not. :)
Other examples:
say(42 and 42);
say(42 ==> 99);
yield the same error.
What am I missing about how precedence works?
Perhaps nothing. Perhaps it will be desirable and possible to fix the grammar so these function-call-arg-list-signifying parens determine precedence just like plain expression parens do.
If so, perhaps fixing it would best wait, or perhaps realistically must wait, until when or after RakuAST lands (6.e?). Or perhaps even later, lf/when grammar cleanup/slangs lands (6.f?).
Or perhaps it's going to always stay as it is for reasons such as good usability (despite the initial "huh?") and/or expediency and/or single-pass parsing and/or whatever.
I've dug a little to see if I could find relevant commentary. Here are some (juicy?) bits:
the OPP is a bit more complex than a standard binary-operator OPP
(from a comment on #perl6)
If you scroll backwards from Larry's comment you'll see he said this in the context of Raku's extraordinary seamless parsing (no delimiters introduced) in a single pass of nested sub-languages that each can have arbitrary grammars.
(Btw, one thought I had: did std parse say(42 and 42) fine? I'm not sure if there's a running std anywhere these days.)
While we do have complete control of stock Raku, I'm not convinced there's anything compelling about bending over backwards to fix every wrinkle of this sort (foo(... op ...) in this case) when the general case (..... where the middle ... inside the outer pair of .s has arbitrary syntax) means we'll be hitting limits in how "perfect" it can all be when there's a huge amount of anarchic language / syntax mixing going on in userland/module space, as I anticipate will emerge in years to come.
So, imo, if it's reasonably easy to fix, without unduly cramping or burdening user slang freedom, great. If not, I think the current situation is fair enough (though perhaps it'll be desirable, viable and reasonable to improve the error message).
Perhaps consider the foregoing in combination with:
Raku borrows many concepts from human language ...
(from the doc)
in combination with:
☞ Self-clocking code produces better syntax error messages
(from Seeing Wrong Right)
in combination with:
Break that clock and your error messages will turn to mush
(from a mailing list comment)
But then again:
Please don't assume that rakudo's idiosyncracies and design fossils are canonical.
Do you mean this, maybe...?
> say ( NaN.Int orelse 42 )
42
since
> say( NaN.Int orelse 42 )
===SORRY!=== Error while compiling:
Unable to parse expression in argument list; couldn't find final ')' (corresponding starter was at line 1)
------> say( '42'.Int⏏ orelse 42 )
expecting any of:
infix
infix stopper
I would tend to agree with #lizmat that there is a grammar bug in the compiler.
I've recently encountered these two variables in some Velocity code:
$!variable1
!$variable2
I was surprised by the similarity of these so I became suspicious about the correctness of the code and become interested in finding the difference between two.
Is it possible that velocity allows any order of these two symbols or do they have different purpose? Do you know the answer?
#Jr. Here is the guide I followed when doing VM R&D: http://velocity.apache.org/engine/1.7/user-guide.html
Velocity uses the !$ and $! annotations for different things. If you use !$ it will basically be the same as a normal "!" operator, but the $! is used as a basic check to see if the variable is blank and if so it prints it out as an empty string. If your variable is empty or null and you don't use the $! annotation it will print the actual variable name as a string.
I googled and stackoverflowed a lot before I finally found the answer at people.apache.org.
According to that:
It is very easy to confuse the quiet reference notation with the
boolean not-Operator. Using the not-Operator, you use !${foo}, while
the quiet reference notation is $!{foo}. And yes, you will end up
sometimes with !$!{foo}...
Easy after all, shame it didn't struck me immediately. Hope this helps someone.
I am using a MixHash to combine two Hashes with the Bag add (+) operator. This seems to work - but ... I am a bit surprised that the result of the union needs to be re-coerced back to a MixHash.
My guess is that the Bag add (+) infix operator coerces everything to a Bag first and returns the result as a Bag. This may be risky for me as some of my weights are negative (thus the Mix in the first place). Will this properly add negative weights?
Alternatively, is there a Mix add (+) operator?
my MixHash $dim-mix;
for ... {
my $add-mix = $!dims.MixHash;
$dim-mix = $dim-mix ?? ( $dim-mix (+) $add-mix ).MixHash !! $add-mix;
}
dd $dim-mix;
Now I look at this paraphrased code, perhaps there is some formulation of ternary ?? !! that can avoid spelling out $dim-mix in the test since already on the left?
Many thanks for any advice!
my $add-mix = (foo => 0.22, bar => -0.1).Mix;
my $dim-mix;
for ^5 {
$dim-mix (+)= $add-mix;
}
dd $dim-mix; # Mix $dim-mix = ("foo"=>1.1,"bar"=>-0.5).Mix
Obviously I've not used a MixHash, but you can sort that out if you need to after the loop.
(And of course you might be thinking "but isn't a Mix immutable?" It is -- but you have to distinguish variables and values. $dim-mix is a variable, a Scalar variable. Even if you type it -- my Mix $dim-mix; it's still a Scalar variable holding a Mix value. You can always assign to a Scalar.)
I'm starting to get a routine for questions like this where I don't know what's going on but I think I ought to be able to figure it out. Here was my process:
I got your code to run to see what it did. I tried to simplify the ternary. Hmm.
I turned to the doc. There was the doc page for (+). That called it "Baggy addition". That was worrisome given that a Bag only holds (positive) integers.
I turned to the source. I fired off a search of the rakudo sources for "Baggy addition". One result. I focused on the multi with (Mixy:D $a, QuantHash:D $b) signature. This showed me that the result should stay Mixy, i.e. the doc's implication it would or could go Baggy is a red herring.
I returned to the code and started wondering what I could do. When I initially tried to use (+)= to simplify the main assignment the compiler complained expected MixHash but got Mix. I tried a half dozen things that didn't work then just changed the MixHash constraint on $dim-mix to Mixy and it worked.
Then I thought through what was going on and realized that almost all the types were getting in the way of P6 just doing the right thing.
You can add some types back in if you really need them.
(But do you really need them? When types are absolutely necessary they're great. Otherwise, imo, think twice, and then twice again, before introducing them. They can easily make code harder to read, reason about, compose, and slower.)
(Of course there are occasions on which they're not strictly necessary but do really help overall. Imo, as with all things, keep it simple at first and only complexify if you see clear benefits for a particular line of code.)
Okay, what I really wanted to do is, I have an Array and I want to choose a random element from it. The obvious thing to do is get an integer from a random number generator between 0 and the length minus 1, which I have working already, and then applying Array.get, but that returns a Maybe a. (It appears there's also a package function that does the same thing.) Coming from Haskell, I get the type significance that it's protecting me from the case where my index was out of range, but I have control over the index and don't expect that to happen, so I'd just like to assume I got a Just something and somewhat forcibly convert to a. In Haskell this would be fromJust or, if I was feeling verbose, fromMaybe (error "some message"). How should I do this in Elm?
I found a discussion on the mailing list that seems to be discussing this, but it's been a while and I don't see the function I want in the standard library where the discussion suggests it would be.
Here are some pretty unsatisfying potential solutions I found so far:
Just use withDefault. I do have a default value of a available, but I don't like this as it gives the completely wrong meaning to my code and will probably make debugging harder down the road.
Do some fiddling with ports to interface with Javascript and get an exception thrown there if it's Nothing. I haven't carefully investigated how this works yet, but apparently it's possible. But this just seems to mix up too many dependencies for what would otherwise be simple pure Elm.
(answering my own question)
I found two more-satisfying solutions:
Roll my own partially defined function, which was referenced elsewhere in the linked discussion. But the code kind of feels incomplete this way (I'd hope the compiler would warn me about incomplete pattern matches some day) and the error message is still unclear.
Pattern-match and use Debug.crash if it's a Nothing. This appears similar to Haskell's error and is the solution I'm leaning towards right now.
import Debug
fromJust : Maybe a -> a
fromJust x = case x of
Just y -> y
Nothing -> Debug.crash "error: fromJust Nothing"
(Still, the module name and description also make me hesitate because it doesn't seem like the "right" method intended for my purposes; I want to indicate true programmer error instead of mere debugging.)
Solution
The existence or use of a fromJust or equivalent function is actually code smell and tells you that the API has not been designed correctly. The problem is that you're attempting to make a decision on what to do before you have the information to do it. You can think of this in two cases:
If you know what you're supposed to do with Nothing, then the solution is simple: use withDefault. This will become obvious when you're looking at the right point in your code.
If you don't know what you're supposed to do in the case where you have Nothing, but you still want to make a change, then you need a different way of doing so. Instead of pulling the value out of the Maybe use Maybe.map to change the value while keeping the Maybe. As an example, let's say you're doing the following:
foo : Maybe Int -> Int
foo maybeVal =
let
innerVal = fromJust maybeVal
in
innerVal + 2
Instead, you'll want this:
foo : Maybe Int -> Maybe Int
foo maybeVal =
Maybe.map (\innerVal -> innerVal + 2) maybeVal
Notice that the change you wanted is still done in this case, you've simply not handled the case where you have a Nothing. You can now pass this value up and down the call chain until you've hit a place where it's natural to use withDefault to get rid of the Maybe.
What's happened is that we've separated the concerns of "How do I change this value" and "What do I do when it doesn't exist?". We deal with the former using Maybe.map and the latter with Maybe.withDefault.
Caveat
There are a small number of cases where you simply know that you have a Just value and need to eliminate it using fromJust as you described, but those cases should be few and far between. There's quite a few that actually have a simpler alternative.
Example: Attempting to filter a list and get the value out.
Let's say you have a list of Maybes that you want the values of. A common strategy might be:
foo : List (Maybe a) -> List a
foo hasAnything =
let
onlyHasJustValues = List.filter Maybe.isJust hasAnything
onlyHasRealValues = List.map fromJust onlyHasJustValues
in
onlyHasRealValues
Turns out that even in this case, there are clean ways to avoid fromJust. Most languages with a collection that has a map and a filter have a method to filter using a Maybe built in. Haskell has Maybe.mapMaybe, Scala has flatMap, and Elm has List.filterMap. This transforms your code into:
foo : List (Maybe a) -> List a
foo hasAnything =
let
onlyHasRealValues = List.filterMap (\x -> x) hasAnything
in
onlyHasRealValues
I didn't touch Prolog since high-school, and even though I've tried to find the info, it didn't help. Below is the example that has to illustrate my problem:
%% everybody():- [dana, cody, bess, abby].
%% Everybody = [dana, cody, bess, abby].
likes(dana, cody).
hates(bess, dana).
hates(cody, abby).
hates(X, Y):- \+ likes(X, Y).
likes_somebody(_, []):- fail.
likes_somebody(X, [girl | others]):-
likes(X, girl) ; likes_somebody(X, others).
likes_everybody(_, []):- true.
likes_everybody(X, [girl | others]):-
likes(X, girl) , likes_everybody(X, others).
maplist(likes_somebody, [dana, cody, bess, abby], [dana, cody, bess, abby]).
How do I declare everybody to just be the list of girls? The commented lines are those which I've tried, but I've got bizarre error messages back.
This is the tutorial I followed more or less so far. I'm using GProlog, if it makes any difference. Sorry for such a basic question. GProlog's manual doesn't deal with language syntax, but I've certainly looked there. As an aside, I would be grateful for information on where to look for language documentation (as opposed to implementation documentation).
Every variable in Prolog must begin with an uppercase letter. So for starters, you want Everybody, not everybody.
Second problem, variables in Prolog are not assignables. So probably what you want to do is make a fact and use that instead:
everybody([dana, cody, bess, abby]).
Your bottom line of code is actually a fact definition and will attempt to overwrite maplist/3. What you probably want to do is put everything above that line into a file (say, called likes.pl) and then consult it ([likes].). Then you can run a query like this:
?- everybody(Everybody), maplist(likes_somebody, Everybody, Everybody).
This won't work, because likes_somebody/2 processes a list in the second argument. The predicate you have for likes_somebody/2 could be written:
likes_somebody(_, []).
but still won't mean much. It simply unifies anything with the empty list:
?- likes_somebody(chicken_tacos, []).
true.
You really need a predicate to tell you if someone is a girl, like this:
girl(dana).
girl(cody).
girl(bess).
girl(abby).
Then you could do what I think you're trying to do, which is something closer to this:
likes_somebody(X) :- girl(X).
Then the maplist construction would work like this:
everybody(Everybody), maplist(likes_somebody, Everybody).
Which would simply return true. You could simplify and eliminate everybody/1 by instead using findall(Girl, girl(X), Everybody) but it's getting weird.
You're trying to do list processing with likes_everybody/2, but it's broken because girl is literally girl, not a variable, and others is literally others, not a list of some kind that could be the tail of another list.
I think you still have some old ideas you need to cleanse. Read some more, write some more, and your code will start to make a lot more sense.