I want to replace the text in a string "Sin()" with the computed value for Math.Sin() where is...anything.
My problem: The string can have more than one right parenthesis. Also, since it is performing mathematical operations, it would have to know how to do the innermost ones first.
Obviously, there is not a built in method for computing mathematical equations (well, nothing that is SUPPOSED to be used for that), as noted in a previous question of mine.
This is very tricky, can anyone help?
You want to tokenize your input text, and then parse your tokens. As Alex Martelli points out, CodeProject also has a good example of something similar (which I was able to find in <10 seconds with Google).
There's a good example of an expression parser and evaluator in vb.net here, I imagine you can study and modify those sources (it also offers clear text explanations).
Related
I am going to attend the Instance Matching of OAEI, now I need to make my results to Alignment Format. In order to achieve it, I have learned official tutorials.(link:http://alignapi.gforge.inria.fr/tutorial/tutorial1/index.html).
But there are many differences between the method taught and the method I want. In other words, I can't understand the API.
This is my situation:
I have 2 rdf file(person11.rdf and person12.rdf respectively.data link is http://oaei.ontologymatching.org/2010/im/index.html, the PR dataset), each file has information of many person. I want to find the coreferent entities, the results must be printed in Alignment Format. I find the results by using SPARQL, but I don't know how to print it in Alignment Format.
So, I have three questions:
First, if I want to generate a Alignment Format file, is the method taught the only way?
Second, can you give me your method(code better) to generate the Alignment Format file? Maybe I am wrong from the beginning, can you give me some suggestions?
Third, if you attended OAEI or know something about Instance Matching, can you give me some advice? I want to find the coreferent entities.
Thank you!
First question: I guess that the "mentioned method" is the one in tutorial1. It is not the appropriate one since you have to write a program to output the alignment format and this is a command line interface tutorial. In this case, you'd better look at http://alignapi.gforge.inria.fr/tutorial/tutorial2/index.html
Then, there are basically two ways to do:
The advised one (for several reasons and for participating to OAEI) is to follow these tutorials, to create an empty alignment in it, to create the correspondences from the results of your SPARQL query and to render it. Everything is covered by the tutorials but the part concerning your SPARQL queries. This assumes that you are programming in Java.
The non-advised solution (primarily non advised because you will have to debug your own renderer), is to write, in any programming language that you want a program that output the format (which corresponds to what you cite).
Think about it: how would you expect that the Alignment API knows the results of your SPARQL query? If you come up with a nice solution, contact the API developers, they may integrate it and others could benefit.
Second question: I cannot do better than what is above.
Third question: too general. Read the OAEI results (http://oaei.ontologymatching.org) and look at the code of others.
Good luck!
I just stumbled across this gem in our code:
my $str_rep="lower(replace(replace(replace(replace(replace(replace(replace(replace(replace(replace(replace(replace(replace(field,'-',''),'',''),'.',''),'_',''),'+',''),',',''),':',''),';',''),'/',''),'|',''),'\',''),'*',''),'~','')) like lower('%var%')";
I'm not really an expert in DB, but I have a hunch it can be rewritten in a more sane manner. Can it?
It depends on the DBMS you are using. I'll post some examples (feel free to edit this answer to add more).
MySQL
There is really not much to do; the only way to replace all the characters is nesting REPLACE functions as it has already been done in your code.
Oracle DB
Your clause can be rewritten by using the TRANSLATE function.
SQL Server
Like in MySQL there aren't any functions similar to Oracle's TRANSLATE. I have found some (much longer) alternatives in the answers to this question. In general, however, queries become very long. I don't see any real advantages of doing so, besides having a more structured query that can be easily extended.
Firebird
As suggested by Mark Rotteveel, you can use SIMILAR TO to rewrite the entire clause.
If you are allowed to build your query string via Perl you can also use a for loop against an array containing all the special characters.
EDIT: Sorry I did not see you indicated the DB in the tags. Consider only the last part of my answer.
Your flagged this as Perl, but it's probably not?
Here is a Perl solution anyway:
$var =~ s/[\-\.\_\+\,\:\;\/\|\\\*\~]+//g;
Sorry I don't know the languages concerned, but a couple of things come to mind.
Firstly you could look for a replace text function that does more that just a single character. Many languages have them. Some also do regular expression based find and replace.
Secondly the code looks like it is attempting to strip a specific list of characters. This list may not include all that is necessary which means a relatively high (pain in the butt) maintenance problem. A simpler solution might be to invert the problem and ask what characters do you want to keep? Inverting like this sometimes yields a simpler solution.
In my program I need to make various word replacements but I don't want to replace the word if it's encapsulated. Here's an example:
This is an example. Here is the {definition of example}: A small part
or quantity intended to show what the whole is like. Examples are great.
I would like it to turn that into this:
This is an replacement words. Here is the {definition of example}: A small part
or quantity intended to show what the whole is like. replacement words are great.
Sorry, I don't have any code to show progress yet aside from my current code to make replacements and that won't help with this problem.
Thanks!
Phil
One way to accomplish this is using Regular Expressions.
A great tool for experimenting with and learning Regular Expressions is Expresso (it provides detailed explanations of entered Regex's).
The 30 Minute Regex Tutorial
Using Regular Expressions with The Microsoft .NET Framework
Regular expressions - An introduction
Regex Class
What is the best way to implement a constructor for a record? It seems like a function should be able to return a record object in the instantiation of the record in some later model higher up the tree, but I can't get that to work. For now I just use a bunch of parameters at the top of the record that populate the variables stored in the record, but it seems like that will only work in simple cases.
Can anyone shed a little light? Perhaps I shouldn't be using a record but a model. Also does anyone know how the PDE functionality is coming? The book only says that it is coming, but I have seen some other things around.
I don't seem to have the clout to add tags (which makes sense, since my "reputation" is lower than yours) so sorry about that. I thought I had actually added one at one point, but perhaps I am mistaken.
I think you need to be clear what you mean by constructor since it has a very specific meaning in Modelica. If I understand your question correctly, it sounds like what you want to do is create an instance of a record that has some fields that are specified in the constructor arguments and from those arguments a bunch of other fields in the record are computed. Is that correct?
If so, there is a mechanism to do this. You mention "the book" but it isn't clear which one you mean. If it is mine, it definitely has no mention of these so called "record constructors" because it is too old. I do not know if Peter Fritzson's book mentions them either. However, they do exist and are documented in Section 12.6 of the Modelica 3.2 specification.
As for PDEs, there has been work into this kind of thing but nothing has really been done within the design group on this topic. I would add that if you want to solve either elliptical or parabolic PDEs on regular grids, this isn't too hard even with the current language. The only real drawback is that most tools probably don't handle sparsity very efficiently. Irregular grids would also be possible, but then you get into complicated basis functions. Finally, hyperbolic PDEs are, in my opinion, quite tricky (in any environment) due to the implicit physical constraints between time and space which are difficult to express (i.e. the CFL condition).
I hope that answers your questions so far.
I can only comment on your question regarding the book of Peter Fritzson. He confirmed that he's working on an update and he hopes to get it ready 'in the course of 2011'.
Original post here:
http://openmodelica.org/index.php/forum/topic?id=50
And thanks for initiating the modelica tag, I might be useful in the near future for me too... :-)
regards,
Roel
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?".