I have a slice that I have guaranteed (in runtime) that its length is at least 8. I want to convert that slice to an array because I need to use std.mem.bytesAsValue() in order to create an f64 from raw bytes (for context, I'm implementing a binary serialization format).
I solved it like this, but I'd like to know if there is a better syntax for achieving the same goal:
var array: [8]u8 = undefined;
array[0] = slice[0];
array[1] = slice[1];
array[2] = slice[2];
array[3] = slice[3];
array[4] = slice[4];
array[5] = slice[5];
array[6] = slice[6];
array[7] = slice[7];
Given your goal, if alignment works out, you could just cast the slice pointer to a pointer to a f64: #ptrCast(*f64, slice.ptr). This saves you from even having to copy anything, in case you don't need to do that at all.
Note that bytesAsValues is a stdlib function that uses compiler builtins, if the signature doesn't match your needs, you can just skip it and use directly the builtins, like I mentioned above. Don't be afraid to read the stdlib source code.
Here's a godbolt link with some examples on how to do the conversion in-place (by casting the pointer) and by copying everything immediately as a float: https://zig.godbolt.org/z/3Y9o5zvfe
you can do this by std.mem.copy
var array = slice[0..8].*;
or using std.mem.copy
std.mem.copy(u8, &array, slice[0..2]);
while i think you can just need to put slice[0..8] as argument instead creating a variable
Related
I've done most of my development in C# and am just learning F#. Here's what I want to do in C#:
string AddChars(char char1, char char2) => char1.ToString() + char2.ToString();
EDIT: added ToString() method to the C# example.
I want to write the same method in F# and I don't know how to do it other than this:
let addChars char1 char2 = Char.ToString(char1) + Char.ToString(char2)
Is there a way to add concatenate these chars into a string without converting both into strings first?
Sidenote:
I also have considered making a char array and converting that into a string, but that seems similarly wasteful.
let addChars (char1:char) (char2: char) = string([|char1; char2|])
As I said in my comment, your C# code is not going to do what you want ( i.e. concatenate the characters into a string). In C#, adding a char and a char will result in an int. The reason for this is because the char type doesn't define a + operator, so C# reverts to the nearest compatable type that does, which just happens to be int. (Source)
So to accomplish this behavior, you will need to do something similar to what you are already trying to do in F#:
char a = 'a';
char b = 'b';
// This is the wrong way to concatenate chars, because the
// chars will be treated as ints and the result will be 195.
Console.WriteLine(a + b);
// These are the correct ways to concatenate characters into
// a single string. The result of all of these will be "ab".
// The third way is the recommended way as it is concise and
// involves creating the fewest temporary objects.
Console.WriteLine(a.ToString() + b.ToString());
Console.WriteLine(Char.ToString(a) + Char.ToString(b));
Console.WriteLine(new String(new[] { a, b }));
(See https://dotnetfiddle.net/aEh1FI)
F# is the same way in that concatenating two or more chars doesn't result in a String. Unlike C#, it results instead in another char, but the process is the same - the char values are treated like int and added together, and the result is the char representation of the sum.
So really, the way to concatenate chars into a String in F# is what you already have, and is the direct translation of the C# equivalent:
let a = 'a'
let b = 'b'
// This is still the wrong way (prints 'Ã')
printfn "%O" (a + b)
// These are still the right ways (prints "ab")
printfn "%O" (a.ToString() + b.ToString())
printfn "%O" (Char.ToString(a) + Char.ToString(b))
printfn "%O" (String [| a;b |]) // This is still the best way
(See https://dotnetfiddle.net/ALwI3V)
The reason the "String from char array" approach is the best way is two-fold. First, it is the most concise, since you can see that that approach offers the shortest line of code in both languages (and the difference only increases as you add more and more chars together). And second, only one temporary object is created (the array) before the final String, whereas the other two methods involve making two separate temporary String objects to feed into the final result.
(Also, I'm not sure if it works this way as the String constructors are hidden in external sources, but I imagine that the array passed into the constructor would be used as the String's backing data, so it wouldn't end up getting wasted at all.) Strings are immutable, but using the passed array directly as the created String's backing data could result in a situation where a reference to the array could be held elsewhere in the program and jeopardize the String's immutability, so this speculation wouldn't fly in practice. (Credit: #CaringDev)
Another option you could do in F# that could be more idiomatic is to use the sprintf function to combine the two characters (Credit: #rmunn):
let a = 'a'
let b = 'b'
let s = sprintf "%c%c" a b
printfn "%O" s
// Prints "ab"
(See https://dotnetfiddle.net/Pp9Tee)
A note of warning about this method, however, is that it is almost certainly going to be much slower than any of the other three methods listed above. That's because instead of processing array or String data directly, sprintf is going to be performing more advanced formatting logic on the output. (I'm not in a position where I could benchmark this myself at the moment, but plugged into #TomasPetricek's benckmarking code below, I wouldn't be surprised if you got performance hits of 10x or more.)
This might not be a big deal as for a single conversion it will still be far faster than any end-user could possibly notice, but be careful if this is going to be used in any performance-critical code.
The answer by #Abion47 already lists all the possible sensible methods I can think of. If you are interested in performance, then you can run a quick experiment using the F# Interactive #time feature:
#time
open System
open System.Text
let a = 'a'
let b = 'b'
Comparing the three methods, the one with String [| a; b |] turns out to be about twice as fast as the methods involving ToString. In practice, that's probably not a big deal unless you are doing millions of such operations (as my experiment does), but it's an interesting fact to know:
// 432ms, 468ms, 472ms
for i in 0 .. 10000000 do
let s = a.ToString() + b.ToString()
ignore s
// 396ms 440ms, 458ms
for i in 0 .. 10000000 do
let s = Char.ToString(a) + Char.ToString(b)
ignore s
// 201ms, 171ms, 170ms
for i in 0 .. 10000000 do
let s = String [| a;b |]
ignore s
Are the following two examples equivalent?
Example 1:
let x = String::new();
let y = &x[..];
Example 2:
let x = String::new();
let y = &*x;
Is one more efficient than the other or are they basically the same?
In the case of String and Vec, they do the same thing. In general, however, they aren't quite equivalent.
First, you have to understand Deref. This trait is implemented in cases where a type is logically "wrapping" some lower-level, simpler value. For example, all of the "smart pointer" types (Box, Rc, Arc) implement Deref to give you access to their contents.
It is also implemented for String and Vec: String "derefs" to the simpler str, Vec<T> derefs to the simpler [T].
Writing *s is just manually invoking Deref::deref to turn s into its "simpler form". It is almost always written &*s, however: although the Deref::deref signature says it returns a borrowed pointer (&Target), the compiler inserts a second automatic deref. This is so that, for example, { let x = Box::new(42i32); *x } results in an i32 rather than a &i32.
So &*s is really just shorthand for Deref::deref(&s).
s[..] is syntactic sugar for s.index(RangeFull), implemented by the Index trait. This means to slice the "whole range" of the thing being indexed; for both String and Vec, this gives you a slice of the entire contents. Again, the result is technically a borrowed pointer, but Rust auto-derefs this one as well, so it's also almost always written &s[..].
So what's the difference? Hold that thought; let's talk about Deref chaining.
To take a specific example, because you can view a String as a str, it would be really helpful to have all the methods available on strs automatically available on Strings as well. Rather than inheritance, Rust does this by Deref chaining.
The way it works is that when you ask for a particular method on a value, Rust first looks at the methods defined for that specific type. Let's say it doesn't find the method you asked for; before giving up, Rust will check for a Deref implementation. If it finds one, it invokes it and then tries again.
This means that when you call s.chars() where s is a String, what's actually happening is that you're calling s.deref().chars(), because String doesn't have a method called chars, but str does (scroll up to see that String only gets this method because it implements Deref<Target=str>).
Getting back to the original question, the difference between &*s and &s[..] is in what happens when s is not just String or Vec<T>. Let's take a few examples:
s: String; &*s: &str, &s[..]: &str.
s: &String: &*s: &String, &s[..]: &str.
s: Box<String>: &*s: &String, &s[..]: &str.
s: Box<Rc<&String>>: &*s: &Rc<&String>, &s[..]: &str.
&*s only ever peels away one layer of indirection. &s[..] peels away all of them. This is because none of Box, Rc, &, etc. implement the Index trait, so Deref chaining causes the call to s.index(RangeFull) to chain through all those intermediate layers.
Which one should you use? Whichever you want. Use &*s (or &**s, or &***s) if you want to control exactly how many layers of indirection you want to strip off. Use &s[..] if you want to strip them all off and just get at the innermost representation of the value.
Or, you can do what I do and use &*s because it reads left-to-right, whereas &s[..] reads left-to-right-to-left-again and that annoys me. :)
Addendum
There's the related concept of Deref coercions.
There's also DerefMut and IndexMut which do all of the above, but for &mut instead of &.
They are completely the same for String and Vec.
The [..] syntax results in a call to Index<RangeFull>::index() and it's not just sugar for [0..collection.len()]. The latter would introduce the cost of bound checking. Gladly this is not the case in Rust so they both are equally fast.
Relevant code:
index of String
deref of String
index of Vec (just returns self which triggers the deref coercion thus executes exactly the same code as just deref)
deref of Vec
I'm working on a piece of code that use generics. This is an example of what I'm trying to achieve :
var strings: Array<Array<String>> = [["1", "2", "3"], ["4", "5", "6"]]
var array: Array<Array<AnyObject>> = strings
But the compiler says "'String' is not identical to 'AnyObject'".
I have no idea why the compiler complains and how to achieve what I need.
I already tried casting it like this :
var array: Array<Array<AnyObject>> = strings as Array<Array<AnyObject>>
Without any success.
Do you guys have any idea ?
Thanks.
That doesn't work because, as the compiler says, AnyObject is not String, although you can cast AnyObject to String and vice versa.
It doesn't even work using different value types that may seem "compatible":
var array1: Array<Array<UInt>> = []
var array2: Array<Array<Int>> = array1
The only way to do what you need is to write a converter that given an array containing object of type String returns an array of AnyObject.
The reason is that even if 2 data types are compatible, they do not use the same amount of memory and can have different data members and initialization constraints.
Taking into account that arrays are value types, the assignment is not done by reference - instead a copy of the array is created and assigned to the destination variable. If the underlying data type is the same for left and right side of the assignment, each item in the array can just be copied byte by byte to create a copy of it. If the left and right side have different types, that is not possible because most likely they use memory in a different way (i.e. they may have different data members), so in that case the object should be instantiated via an initializer, but which one and using which parameters?
For example, if I want to read the middle value from magic(5), I can do so like this:
M = magic(5);
value = M(3,3);
to get value == 13. I'd like to be able to do something like one of these:
value = magic(5)(3,3);
value = (magic(5))(3,3);
to dispense with the intermediate variable. However, MATLAB complains about Unbalanced or unexpected parenthesis or bracket on the first parenthesis before the 3.
Is it possible to read values from an array/matrix without first assigning it to a variable?
It actually is possible to do what you want, but you have to use the functional form of the indexing operator. When you perform an indexing operation using (), you are actually making a call to the subsref function. So, even though you can't do this:
value = magic(5)(3, 3);
You can do this:
value = subsref(magic(5), struct('type', '()', 'subs', {{3, 3}}));
Ugly, but possible. ;)
In general, you just have to change the indexing step to a function call so you don't have two sets of parentheses immediately following one another. Another way to do this would be to define your own anonymous function to do the subscripted indexing. For example:
subindex = #(A, r, c) A(r, c); % An anonymous function for 2-D indexing
value = subindex(magic(5), 3, 3); % Use the function to index the matrix
However, when all is said and done the temporary local variable solution is much more readable, and definitely what I would suggest.
There was just good blog post on Loren on the Art of Matlab a couple days ago with a couple gems that might help. In particular, using helper functions like:
paren = #(x, varargin) x(varargin{:});
curly = #(x, varargin) x{varargin{:}};
where paren() can be used like
paren(magic(5), 3, 3);
would return
ans = 16
I would also surmise that this will be faster than gnovice's answer, but I haven't checked (Use the profiler!!!). That being said, you also have to include these function definitions somewhere. I personally have made them independent functions in my path, because they are super useful.
These functions and others are now available in the Functional Programming Constructs add-on which is available through the MATLAB Add-On Explorer or on the File Exchange.
How do you feel about using undocumented features:
>> builtin('_paren', magic(5), 3, 3) %# M(3,3)
ans =
13
or for cell arrays:
>> builtin('_brace', num2cell(magic(5)), 3, 3) %# C{3,3}
ans =
13
Just like magic :)
UPDATE:
Bad news, the above hack doesn't work anymore in R2015b! That's fine, it was undocumented functionality and we cannot rely on it as a supported feature :)
For those wondering where to find this type of thing, look in the folder fullfile(matlabroot,'bin','registry'). There's a bunch of XML files there that list all kinds of goodies. Be warned that calling some of these functions directly can easily crash your MATLAB session.
At least in MATLAB 2013a you can use getfield like:
a=rand(5);
getfield(a,{1,2}) % etc
to get the element at (1,2)
unfortunately syntax like magic(5)(3,3) is not supported by matlab. you need to use temporary intermediate variables. you can free up the memory after use, e.g.
tmp = magic(3);
myVar = tmp(3,3);
clear tmp
Note that if you compare running times with the standard way (asign the result and then access entries), they are exactly the same.
subs=#(M,i,j) M(i,j);
>> for nit=1:10;tic;subs(magic(100),1:10,1:10);tlap(nit)=toc;end;mean(tlap)
ans =
0.0103
>> for nit=1:10,tic;M=magic(100); M(1:10,1:10);tlap(nit)=toc;end;mean(tlap)
ans =
0.0101
To my opinion, the bottom line is : MATLAB does not have pointers, you have to live with it.
It could be more simple if you make a new function:
function [ element ] = getElem( matrix, index1, index2 )
element = matrix(index1, index2);
end
and then use it:
value = getElem(magic(5), 3, 3);
Your initial notation is the most concise way to do this:
M = magic(5); %create
value = M(3,3); % extract useful data
clear M; %free memory
If you are doing this in a loop you can just reassign M every time and ignore the clear statement as well.
To complement Amro's answer, you can use feval instead of builtin. There is no difference, really, unless you try to overload the operator function:
BUILTIN(...) is the same as FEVAL(...) except that it will call the
original built-in version of the function even if an overloaded one
exists (for this to work, you must never overload
BUILTIN).
>> feval('_paren', magic(5), 3, 3) % M(3,3)
ans =
13
>> feval('_brace', num2cell(magic(5)), 3, 3) % C{3,3}
ans =
13
What's interesting is that feval seems to be just a tiny bit quicker than builtin (by ~3.5%), at least in Matlab 2013b, which is weird given that feval needs to check if the function is overloaded, unlike builtin:
>> tic; for i=1:1e6, feval('_paren', magic(5), 3, 3); end; toc;
Elapsed time is 49.904117 seconds.
>> tic; for i=1:1e6, builtin('_paren', magic(5), 3, 3); end; toc;
Elapsed time is 51.485339 seconds.
Could someone please tell me how to write a custom function in Open Office Basic to be used in Open Office Calc and that returns an array of values. An example of one such built-in function is MINVERSE. I need to write a custom function that populates a range of cells in much the same way.
Help would be much appreciated.
Yay, I just figured it out: all you do is return an array from your macro, BUT you also have to press Ctrl+Shift+Enter when typing in the cell formula to call your function (which is also the case when working with other arrays in calc). Here's an example:
Function MakeArray
Dim ret(2,2)
ret(0,0) = 1
ret(1,0) = 2
ret(0,1) = 3
ret(1,1) = 4
MakeArray = ret
End Function
FWIW, damjan's MakeArray function returns a Variant containing an array, I think. (The type returned by MakeArray is unspecified, so it defaults to Variant. A Variant is a container with a descriptive header, apparently cast as needed by the interpreter.)
Almost, but not quite, the same thing as returning an array. According to http://www.cpearson.com/excel/passingandreturningarrays.htm, Microsoft did not introduce the ability to return an array until 2000. His example [ LoadNumbers(Low As Long, High As Long) As Long()] does not compile in OO, flagging a syntax error on the parens following Long. It appears that OO's Basic emulates the pre-2k VBA.