or what to do instead of T_COMP? (LAD)
T_COMP compares two tags with a time data type. For LAD and FBD, the
comparison function is displayed with an EN/ENO box. For STL, it is a block call.
To compare time data types for SCL tags, use the comparison expression (see
Chapter 13.3.1 “Execution of “simple” comparison function” on page 570). The tags
to be compared are present at parameters IN1 and IN2. The parameter OUT provides the comparison result: Signal state “1” (TRUE) if the comparison is fulfilled
and signal state “0” (FALSE) if it is not fulfilled.
t_comp pic
You can use simple comparisons in LAD too.
T_COMP is available in extended instructions for LAD and FBD. I believe that is what you are asking.
Related
How does the computer execute value equality comparisons? Does it compare the values bit by bit, starting from the smallest bit, and stop once two different bits are encountered? Or does it start from the highest bit? Does it go through all bits regardless of where/when two unlike bits are found?
When you write an equality comparison in a higher level language (e.g. c), it will be transformed to intermediary representation and then to the instructions of a particular platform this code will be executed upon. Compiler is free to implement the equality comparison using any of the instructions available on a target architecture. The idea is usually to make it faster.
Different architectures have different instruction sets. Different processors can have varying implementation strategies (again to make things faster), as long as they comply with the spec.
Below are a few examples
x86
CMP command is used to compare two values. Here's an excerpt from Instruction set reference.
Compares the first source operand with the second source operand and sets the status flags in the EFLAGS register according to the results. The comparison is performed by subtracting the second operand from the first operand and then setting the status flags in the same manner as the SUB instruction. When an immediate value is used as an operand, it is sign-extended to the length of the first operand.
This basically means all bits are examined. I guess it was implemented that way to allow non-equality(<,>) comparisons too.
So all bits are examined. In the simplest cases that can be done serially, but can be done faster. See wikibooks on add / subtract blocks.
ARM
TEQ command can be used to test two values for equality.
Here's an excerpt from the infocenter.arm.com
The TEQ instruction performs a bitwise Exclusive OR operation on the value in Rn and the value of Operand2. This is the same as the EORS instruction, except that it discards the result.
Use the TEQ instruction to test if two values are equal without affecting the V or C flags.
Again all bits are examined.
According to the algorithm for ISBN10, the check digit can be X, it means, it may not be a number.
But the output of google API: https://www.googleapis.com/books/v1/volumes?q=isbn:xxx uses an integer type for ISBN10 and ISBN13. Why?
P.S.:
The following is part of the google API output:
industryIdentifiers = (
{
identifier = 7542637975;
type = "ISBN_10";
},
{
identifier = 9787542637970;
type = "ISBN_13";
}
);
ISBN-10 in theory should have been replaced by ISBN-13 by 2007. Obviously, this is not possible for already-sold publications, and some publishers still maintain ISBN-10 rather than changing to ISBN-13 (in the same way as some manufacturers maintain UPC-A instead of EAN-13 or GSi.)
To convert a USBN-10 to USBN-13, simply take the first 9 digits of the USBN, prefix it with 978 and then calculate the check digit using the standard EAN algorithm. Use the 13-digit result as your key to locate the item (as a 64-bit unsigned integer).
You can always extract the ISBN-10 by removing the first 3 digits and the check-digit and using the ISBN-10 algorithm to re-calculate the check character.
This way, you only need to record the 13-digit version. If you have an ISBN-10 (read by scanner) or you need to produce an ISBN-10 (for whatever purpose) it's simply a matter of applying the appropriate conversion algorithm.
Depending on your application, you may wish to consider what to do with ISMN (for music) or ISSN (periodical) numbers. Periodicals are the more problematic. The barcode extension usually yields month or week of publication, but the -13 version remains the same. That's fine for a seller or such items, as whatever-01 would be January, and these would be well out-of-date (and hence no-longer-in-stock) by the following January when the same number would be used. Not so good for an archival function like a library, though...
Thank you all for the helpful answers. I finally find out the original response from google is in string format. It's printed like an integer just because of my json printer.
There's a bunch of ways you can compare strings in modern Delphi (say 2010-XE3):
'<=' operator which resolves to UStrCmp / LStrCmp
CompareStr
AnsiCompareStr
Can someone give (or point to) a description of what those methods do, in principle?
So far I've figured that AnsiCompareStr calls CompareString on Windows, which is a "textual" comparison (i.e. takes into account unicode combined characters etc). Simple CompareStr does not do that and seems to do a binary comparison instead.
But what is the difference between CompareStr and UStrCmp? Between UStrCmp and LStrCmp? Do they all produce identical results? Do those results change between versions of Delphi?
I'm asking because I need a comparison which will always produce the same results, so that indexes in app built with one version of Delphi remain consistent with code built with another.
AnsiCompareStr is specified as taking locale into account, and should return identical results regardless of Delphi version, but may return different results based on Windows version and/or settings.. CompareStr is a pure binary comparison: "The comparison operation is based on the 16-bit ordinal value of each character and is not affected by the current locale" (for the CompareStr(const S1, S2: string) overload). UStrCmp also uses a pure binary comparison: "Strings are compared according to the ordinal values that make up the characters that make up the string." So there should not be a difference between the latter two. The way they return the result is different, so two implementations are needed (although it would be possible to make one rely on the other).
As for the differences between LStrCmp and UStrCmp, LStrCmp takes AnsiStrings, UStrCmp takes UnicodeStrings. It's entirely possible that two characters (let's say A and B) are ordered in the misnamed "ANSI" code page as A < B, but are ordered in Unicode as A > B. You should almost always just use the comparison appropriate for the data you have.
Clarification (sorry the question was not specific): They both try to convert the item on the stack to a lua_Number. lua_tonumber will also convert a string that represents a number. How does luaL_checknumber deal with something that's not a number?
There's also luaL_checklong and luaL_checkinteger. Are they the same as (int)luaL_checknumber and (long)luaL_checknumber respectively?
The reference manual does answer this question. I'm citing the Lua 5.2 Reference Manual, but similar text is found in the 5.1 manual as well. The manual is, however, quite terse. It is rare for any single fact to be restated in more than one sentence. Furthermore, you often need to correlate facts stated in widely separated sections to understand the deeper implications of an API function.
This is not a defect, it is by design. This is the reference manual to the language, and as such its primary goal is to completely (and correctly) describe the language.
For more information about "how" and "why" the general advice is to also read Programming in Lua. The online copy is getting rather long in the tooth as it describes Lua 5.0. The current paper edition describes Lua 5.1, and a new edition describing Lua 5.2 is in process. That said, even the first edition is a good resource, as long as you also pay attention to what has changed in the language since version 5.0.
The reference manual has a fair amount to say about the luaL_check* family of functions.
Each API entry's documentation block is accompanied by a token that describes its use of the stack, and under what conditions (if any) it will throw an error. Those tokens are described at section 4.8:
Each function has an indicator like this: [-o, +p, x]
The first field, o, is how many elements the function pops from the
stack. The second field, p, is how many elements the function pushes
onto the stack. (Any function always pushes its results after popping
its arguments.) A field in the form x|y means the function can push
(or pop) x or y elements, depending on the situation; an interrogation
mark '?' means that we cannot know how many elements the function
pops/pushes by looking only at its arguments (e.g., they may depend on
what is on the stack). The third field, x, tells whether the function
may throw errors: '-' means the function never throws any error; 'e'
means the function may throw errors; 'v' means the function may throw
an error on purpose.
At the head of Chapter 5 which documents the auxiliary library as a whole (all functions in the official API whose names begin with luaL_ rather than just lua_) we find this:
Several functions in the auxiliary library are used to check C
function arguments. Because the error message is formatted for
arguments (e.g., "bad argument #1"), you should not use these
functions for other stack values.
Functions called luaL_check* always throw an error if the check is not
satisfied.
The function luaL_checknumber is documented with the token [-0,+0,v] which means that it does not disturb the stack (it pops nothing and pushes nothing) and that it might deliberately throw an error.
The other functions that have more specific numeric types differ primarily in function signature. All are described similarly to luaL_checkint() "Checks whether the function argument arg is a number and returns this number cast to an int", varying the type named in the cast as appropriate.
The function lua_tonumber() is described with the token [-0,+0,-] meaning it has no effect on the stack and does not throw any errors. It is documented to return the numeric value from the specified stack index, or 0 if the stack index does not contain something sufficiently numeric. It is documented to use the more general function lua_tonumberx() which also provides a flag indicating whether it successfully converted a number or not.
It too has siblings named with more specific numeric types that do all the same conversions but cast their results.
Finally, one can also refer to the source code, with the understanding that the manual is describing the language as it is intended to be, while the source is a particular implementation of that language and might have bugs, or might reveal implementation details that are subject to change in future versions.
The source to luaL_checknumber() is in lauxlib.c. It can be seen to be implemented in terms of lua_tonumberx() and the internal function tagerror() which calls typerror() which is implemented with luaL_argerror() to actually throw the formatted error message.
They both try to convert the item on the stack to a lua_Number. lua_tonumber will also convert a string that represents a number. luaL_checknumber throws a (Lua) error when it fails a conversion - it long jumps and never returns from the POV of the C function. lua_tonumber merely returns 0 (which can be a valid return as well.) So you could write this code which should be faster than checking with lua_isnumber first.
double r = lua_tonumber(_L, idx);
if (r == 0 && !lua_isnumber(_L, idx))
{
// Error handling code
}
return r;
An API I use exposes data with different characteristics :
'Static' reference data, that is you ask for them, get one value which supposedly does not change
'historical' values, where you can query for a date range
'subscription' values, where you register yourself for receiving updates
From a semantic point of view, though, those fields are one and the same, and only the consumption mode differs. Reference data can be viewed as a constant function yielding the same result through time. Historical data is just streaming data that happened in the past.
I am trying to find a unifying model against which to program all the semantic of my queries, and distinguish it from its consumption mode.
That mean, the same quotation could evaluated in a "real-time" way which would turn fields into their appropriate IObservable form (when available), or in 'historical' way, which takes a 'clock' as an argument and yield values when ticked, or a 'reference' way, which just yield 1 value (still decorated by the historical date at which the query is ran..)
I am not sure which programming tools in F# would be the most natural fit for that purpose, but I am thinking of quotation, which I never really used.
Would it be well suited for such a task ?
you said it yourself: just go with IObservable
your static case is just OnNext with 1 value
in your historical case you OnNext for each value in your query (at once when a observer is registered)
and the subscription case is just the ordinary IObservable pattern - you don't need something like quotations for this.
I have done something very similar (not the static case, but the streaming and historical case), and IObservable is definitely the right tool for the job. In reality, IEnumerable and IObservable are dual and most things you can write for one you can also write for the other. However, a push based model (IObservable) is more flexible, and the operators you get as part of Rx are more complete and appropriate than those as part of regular IEnumerable LINQ.
Using quotations just means you need to build the above from scratch.
You'll find the following useful:
Observable.Return(value) for a single static value
list.ToObservable() for turning a historical enumerable to an observable
Direct IObservable for streaming values into IObservable
Also note that you can use virtual schedulers for ticking the observable if this helps (most of the above accept a scheduler). I imagine this is what you want for the historical case.
http://channel9.msdn.com/Series/Rx-Workshop/Rx-Workshop-Schedulers