Converting list into agents in foreach loop - foreach

Here is a fraction of code that cause trouble.
to update-trustt
let rank-tvmratio sort-on [tvmratio] turtles
foreach rank-tvmratio tvmratio -> ask rank-tvmratio [set trustt (trustt + tvmratio)]
end
In this code, "rank-tvmratio" is supposed to bring list which looks like :
[(turtle 56) (turtle 23) ... (turtle 9)]
What I want to do is to make each of those turtles to update "trustt" variable
respectively, which is written in the 3rd line.
Following Bryan's advice I inserted "->" and specified "who" is doing "what".
Still, there's a new error message "Nothing name -> has been defined"
How can I solve this problem? I need your wise advice.
(Actually variable tvmratio is coming from program R, using RNetLogo package. Is that have something to do with this?)
Thank you


I think this is probably want you're looking for:
to update-trustt
let rank-tvmratio sort-on [tvmratio] turtles
foreach rank-tvmratio [ t ->
ask t [
set trustt (trustt + rank-tvmratio)
]
]
end
There was a couple problems with your code. First, the command given to foreach needs to include an argument. You do this with the -> syntax. The t (for turtle) before the -> is the variable that each item in the list will be passed in as. Second, you need to explicitly ask t since foreach, unlike ask, doesn't have the agents run the command, it just runs the command with the items passed in one at a time as the argument to the command.

Related

F#: Returning a list with element at index changed

In F# I need to get a list from an existing list with the value at a particular index changed from the original. All I can find on google and here relates to changing something based on value rather than index (fair enough, because lists don't really have a concept of "index", but I bet everyone knew what I meant).
This is obviously easy enough to code. At the moment I have:
// Replace element at index with newElement in seq. Does nothing if index is outside seq.
let updateElement index newElement seq =
let rec updateElementHelper seq count result =
match seq with
| [] -> result |> List.rev
| head::tail ->
if count = index then
updateElementHelper [] (count + 1) (newElement::result)#tail
else
updateElementHelper tail (count + 1) (head::result)
updateElementHelper seq 0 []
which seems to work just fine, but is there a more native way than this?
(F# newbie - or rather, returing after a very long break and never having got all that far the first time around).

The easiest way to implement this is probably to use the List.mapi function - it calls a function you provide for each element of the list and gives you an index, so you can either return the original element or your new element, depending on the index:
let updateElement index element list =
list |> List.mapi (fun i v -> if i = index then element else v)
updateElement 4 40 [ 0 .. 9 ]
As noted by #Jarak, if you need to do this often, then it might be worth thinking whether there is some other more functional approach to your problem where you do not rely on indices - doing something like this would not be very typical thing to do in functional code.

I am assuming that you don't want to allow the list to be mutable. If you did, then you could just index into the list and update the value, e.g. mylist.[index] <- newValue.
I will say right now that any operation on a list that uses any other sort of access than the typical "head + tail -> recurse on tail" style is a strong sign that a list isn't the right data structure for your operation. See e.g. Juliet's answer here. Typically, if you want to be operating on a linear data structure by index, an array is your best bet.
The easiest way I can think of to do this if you still want to do it with a list, would be something like the following:
let newList = oldList.[..index - 1] # (newValue :: oldList.[index + 1..])
(I might possibly have the indices slightly off)
This will probably have very poor performance, however. I think it would be reasonably fair to say that many F#-ers would call any use of # or List slicing a code smell. As a very infrequent operation on small lists it might be alright, but if it will be used frequently, or on large lists, then it would be a good time to start thinking if a list is really the right collection data structure for your task.

Stata: using foreach to rename numeric variables

I have a large dataset where subsets of variables have been entered with the same prefix, followed by an underscore and some details. They are all binary YN and the variables are all doubles. For example, I have the variables onsite_healthclinic and onsite_CBO where values can only be 1 or 0.
I want to rename them all according to the question they are on the survey I'm working off of (so the above variables would become q0052_healthclinic and q0052_CBO), but if I use the code below using substr I (obviously) get type mismatch:
foreach var in onsite_healthclinic onsite_CBO {
local new = substr(`var', 8, .)
rename `new' q0052_`new'
}
My question is, is there another command other than substr that I can use so that I don't have to either a) convert all of the variables to strings first; or b) rename them all manually (there are ~20 in each subset, so while doable, it's a waste of time).

There is no need for a loop here at all. Although the essential answer is one line long I give here a complete, self-contained answer.
clear
set obs 1
foreach v in onsite_healthclinic onsite_CBO {
gen `v' = 1
}
rename onsite_* q0052_*
describe, fullnames
This answer implies that you've not studied the help under rename groups.

Will this work?
foreach var in onsite_healthclinic onsite_CBO {
local new = substr("`var'", 8, .)
rename onsite_`new' q0052_`new'
}
I added quotes around the call to the local var in the substr function and added onsite_ to the rename and that seemed to work.

erlang : placeholder in tuple (or list)

I'd like to tidy my Eralng code, I found there're lots of issue following:
A = {Tid, _Tv0, _Tv1, Tv2, Tv3}
Is there any way to clean the code like to be: A = {Tid, SomewayReplace(4)} ???
Update1:
like #Pascal example, Is there any way to simple the code A = {T, _, _, _, _, _} like to be A = {T, SomewayReplace(4)} to replace that 4 symbol _ ???
update2
in real project, if some record include many element, I found it force me to repeat writing the symbol _, so I wonder if there is any way to simple it???

Writting A = Something means that you try to match A with Something or if A is unbound, assign Something to A. In anycase, Something must be defined.
You can find some shortcut in writting. For example, if you want to assign the result of a funtion to A, verify that the result is a tuple of 5 elements and assign the first element to T, the you can write:
A = {T,_,_,_,_} = f(Param).
The meaning of _T is exactly the same as any variable. It just says to th compiler to not issue a warning if this variable is not used in the code. It is frequent in pattern matching when you want to ignore the value of a variable but still keep trace of its meaning.
[edit]
It is not possible to write {T, SomewayReplace(4)}, but you may use records. A record is a tagged tuple (first element is the atom that identify this record. It is not shorter than placeholder for small tuples, but it is clearer, you don't need to remember the location of the information in your tuple, and it is easier to modify your code when you need to add a new element in a tuple. The syntax will be
-record(mytuple,{field1,...,fieldx,...}.
...
A = #mytuple{fieldx = T} = f(Param).
waerning: Records are managed by the compiler, so everything must be known at build time (#mytuple{Fieldx = T} is illegal, Fieldx cannot be a variable).

Why not use a record? Then you only match the fields you want to extract. As a by-effect, you make the code easier to debug, since you are forced to name the tuple by having a atom first.

Creating a valid function declaration from a complex tuple/list structure

Is there a generic way, given a complex object in Erlang, to come up with a valid function declaration for it besides eyeballing it? I'm maintaining some code previously written by someone who was a big fan of giant structures, and it's proving to be error prone doing it manually.
I don't need to iterate the whole thing, just grab the top level, per se.
For example, I'm working on this right now -
[[["SIP",47,"2",46,"0"],32,"407",32,"Proxy Authentication Required","\r\n"],
[{'Via',
[{'via-parm',
{'sent-protocol',"SIP","2.0","UDP"},
{'sent-by',"172.20.10.5","5060"},
[{'via-branch',"z9hG4bKb561e4f03a40c4439ba375b2ac3c9f91.0"}]}]},
{'Via',
[{'via-parm',
{'sent-protocol',"SIP","2.0","UDP"},
{'sent-by',"172.20.10.15","5060"},
[{'via-branch',"12dee0b2f48309f40b7857b9c73be9ac"}]}]},
{'From',
{'from-spec',
{'name-addr',
[[]],
{'SIP-URI',
[{userinfo,{user,"003018CFE4EF"},[]}],
{hostport,"172.20.10.11",[]},
{'uri-parameters',[]},
[]}},
[{tag,"b7226ffa86c46af7bf6e32969ad16940"}]}},
{'To',
{'name-addr',
[[]],
{'SIP-URI',
[{userinfo,{user,"3966"},[]}],
{hostport,"172.20.10.11",[]},
{'uri-parameters',[]},
[]}},
[{tag,"a830c764"}]},
{'Call-ID',"90df0e4968c9a4545a009b1adf268605#172.20.10.15"},
{'CSeq',1358286,"SUBSCRIBE"},
["date",'HCOLON',
["Mon",44,32,["13",32,"Jun",32,"2011"],32,["17",58,"03",58,"55"],32,"GMT"]],
{'Contact',
[[{'name-addr',
[[]],
{'SIP-URI',
[{userinfo,{user,"3ComCallProcessor"},[]}],
{hostport,"172.20.10.11",[]},
{'uri-parameters',[]},
[]}},
[]],
[]]},
["expires",'HCOLON',3600],
["user-agent",'HCOLON',
["3Com",[]],
[['LWS',["VCX",[]]],
['LWS',["7210",[]]],
['LWS',["IP",[]]],
['LWS',["CallProcessor",[['SLASH',"v10.0.8"]]]]]],
["proxy-authenticate",'HCOLON',
["Digest",'LWS',
["realm",'EQUAL',['SWS',34,"3Com",34]],
[['COMMA',["domain",'EQUAL',['SWS',34,"3Com",34]]],
['COMMA',
["nonce",'EQUAL',
['SWS',34,"btbvbsbzbBbAbwbybvbxbCbtbzbubqbubsbqbtbsbqbtbxbCbxbsbybs",
34]]],
['COMMA',["stale",'EQUAL',"FALSE"]],
['COMMA',["algorithm",'EQUAL',"MD5"]]]]],
{'Content-Length',0}],
"\r\n",
["\n"]]

Maybe https://github.com/etrepum/kvc

I noticed your clarifying comment. I'd prefer to add a comment myself, but don't have enough karma. Anyway, the trick I use for that is to experiment in the shell. I'll iterate a pattern against a sample data structure until I've found the simplest form. You can use the _ match-all variable. I use an erlang shell inside an emacs shell window.
First, bind a sample to a variable:
A = [{a,b},[{c,d}, {e,f}]].
Now set the original structure against the variable:
[{a,b},[{c,d},{e,f}]] = A.
If you hit enter, you'll see they match. Hit alt-p (forget what emacs calls alt, but it's alt on my keyboard) to bring back the previous line. Replace some tuple or list item with an underscore:
[_,[{c,d},{e,f}]].
Hit enter to make sure you did it right and they still match. This example is trivial, but for deeply nested, multiline structures it's trickier, so it's handy to be able to just quickly match to test. Sometimes you'll want to try to guess at whole huge swaths, like using an underscore to match a tuple list inside a tuple that's the third element of a list. If you place it right, you can match the whole thing at once, but it's easy to misread it.
Anyway, repeat to explore the essential shape of the structure and place real variables where you want to pull out values:
[_, [_, _]] = A.
[_, _] = A.
[_, MyTupleList] = A. %% let's grab this tuple list
[{MyAtom,b}, [{c,d}, MyTuple]] = A. %% or maybe we want this atom and tuple
That's how I efficiently dissect and pattern match complex data structures.
However, I don't know what you're doing. I'd be inclined to have a wrapper function that uses KVC to pull out exactly what you need and then distributes to helper functions from there for each type of structure.

If I understand you correctly you want to pattern match some large datastructures of unknown formatting.
Example:
Input: {a, b} {a,b,c,d} {a,[],{},{b,c}}
function({A, B}) -> do_something;
function({A, B, C, D}) when is_atom(B) -> do_something_else;
function({A, B, C, D}) when is_list(B) -> more_doing.
The generic answer is of course that it is undecidable from just data to know how to categorize that data.
First you should probably be aware of iolists. They are created by functions such as io_lib:format/2 and in many other places in the code.
One example is that
[["SIP",47,"2",46,"0"],32,"407",32,"Proxy Authentication Required","\r\n"]
will print as
SIP/2.0 407 Proxy Authentication Required
So, I'd start with flattening all those lists, using a function such as
flatten_io(List) when is_list(List) ->
Flat = lists:map(fun flatten_io/1, List),
maybe_flatten(Flat);
flatten_io(Tuple) when is_tuple(Tuple) ->
list_to_tuple([flatten_io(Element) || Element <- tuple_to_list(Tuple)];
flatten_io(Other) -> Other.
maybe_flatten(L) when is_list(L) ->
case lists:all(fun(Ch) when Ch > 0 andalso Ch < 256 -> true;
(List) when is_list(List) ->
lists:all(fun(X) -> X > 0 andalso X < 256 end, List);
(_) -> false
end, L) of
true -> lists:flatten(L);
false -> L
end.
(Caveat: completely untested and quite inefficient. Will also crash for inproper lists, but you shouldn't have those in your data structures anyway.)
On second thought, I can't help you. Any data structure that uses the atom 'COMMA' for a comma in a string should be taken out and shot.
You should be able to flatten those things as well and start to get a view of what you are looking at.
I know that this is not a complete answer. Hope it helps.

Its hard to recommend something for handling this.
Transforming all the structures in a more sane and also more minimal format looks like its worth it. This depends mainly on the similarities in these structures.
Rather than having a special function for each of the 100 there must be some automatic reformatting that can be done, maybe even put the parts in records.
Once you have records its much easier to write functions for it since you don't need to know the actual number of elements in the record. More important: your code won't break when the number of elements changes.
To summarize: make a barrier between your code and the insanity of these structures by somehow sanitizing them by the most generic code possible. It will be probably a mix of generic reformatting with structure speicific stuff.
As an example already visible in this struct: the 'name-addr' tuples look like they have a uniform structure. So you can recurse over your structures (over all elements of tuples and lists) and match for "things" that have a common structure like 'name-addr' and replace these with nice records.
In order to help you eyeballing you can write yourself helper functions along this example:
eyeball(List) when is_list(List) ->
io:format("List with length ~b\n", [length(List)]);
eyeball(Tuple) when is_tuple(Tuple) ->
io:format("Tuple with ~b elements\n", [tuple_size(Tuple)]).
So you would get output like this:
2> eyeball({a,b,c}).
Tuple with 3 elements
ok
3> eyeball([a,b,c]).
List with length 3
ok
expansion of this in a useful tool for your use is left as an exercise. You could handle multiple levels by recursing over the elements and indenting the output.

Use pattern matching and functions that work on lists to extract only what you need.
Look at http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/lists.html:
keyfind, keyreplace, L = [H|T], ...

Erlang: erl shell hangs after building a large data structure

As suggested in answers to a previous question, I tried using Erlang proplists to implement a prefix trie.
The code seems to work decently well... But, for some reason, it doesn't play well with the interactive shell. When I try to run it, the shell hangs:
> Trie = trie:from_dict(). % Creates a trie from a dictionary
% ... the trie is printed ...
% Then nothing happens
I see the new trie printed to the screen (ie, the call to trie:from_dict() has returned), then the shell just hangs. No new > prompt comes up and ^g doesn't do anything (but ^c will eventually kill it off).
With a very small dictionary (the first 50 lines of /usr/share/dict/words), the hang only lasts a second or two (and the trie is built almost instantly)... But it seems to grow exponentially with the size of the dictionary (100 words takes 5 or 10 seconds, I haven't had the patience to try larger wordlists). Also, as the shell is hanging, I notice that the beam.smp process starts eating up a lot of memory (somewhere between 1 and 2 gigs).
So, is there anything obvious that could be causing this shell hang and incredible memory usage?
Some various comments:
I have a hunch that the garbage collector is at fault, but I don't know how to profile or create an experiment to test that.
I've tried profiling with eprof and nothing obvious showed up.
Here is my "add string to trie" function:
add([], Trie) ->
[ stop | Trie ];
add([Ch|Rest], Trie) ->
SubTrie = proplists:get_value(Ch, Trie, []),
NewSubTrie = add(Rest, SubTrie),
NewTrie = [ { Ch, NewSubTrie } | Trie ],
% Arbitrarily decide to compress key/value list once it gets
% more than 60 pairs.
if length(NewTrie) > 60 ->
proplists:compact(NewTrie);
true ->
NewTrie
end.

The problem is (amongst others ? -- see my comment) that you are always adding a new {Ch, NewSubTrie} tuple to your proplist Tries, no matter if Ch already existed, or not.
Instead of
NewTrie = [ { Ch, NewSubTrie } | Trie ]
you need something like:
NewTrie = lists:keystore(Ch, 1, Trie, {Ch, NewSubTrie})

You're not really building a trie here. Your end result is effectively a randomly ordered proplist of proplists that requires full scans at each level when walking the list. Tries are typically implied ordering based on position in the array (or list).
Here's an implementation that uses tuples as the storage mechanism. Calling set only rebuilds the root and direct path tuples.
(note: would probably have to make the pair a triple (adding size) make delete work with any efficiency)
I believe erlang tuples are really just arrays (thought I read that somewhere), so lookup should be super fast, and modify is probably straight forward. Maybe this is faster with the array module, but I haven't really played with it much to know.
this version also stores an arbitrary value, so you can do things like:
1> c(trie).
{ok,trie}
2> trie:get("ab",trie:set("aa",bar,trie:new("ab",foo))).
foo
3> trie:get("abc",trie:set("aa",bar,trie:new("ab",foo))).
undefined
4>
code (entire module): note2: assumes lower case non empty string keys
-module(trie).
-compile(export_all).
-define(NEW,{ %% 26 pairs, to avoid cost of calculating a new level at runtime
{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},
{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},
{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},
{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},
{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},
{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth},
{undefined,nodepth},{undefined,nodepth}
}
).
-define(POS(Ch), Ch - $a + 1).
new(Key,V) -> set(Key,V,?NEW).
set([H],V,Trie) ->
Pos = ?POS(H),
{_,SubTrie} = element(Pos,Trie),
setelement(Pos,Trie,{V,SubTrie});
set([H|T],V,Trie) ->
Pos = ?POS(H),
{SubKey,SubTrie} = element(Pos,Trie),
case SubTrie of
nodepth -> setelement(Pos,Trie,{SubKey,set(T,V,?NEW)});
SubTrie -> setelement(Pos,Trie,{SubKey,set(T,V,SubTrie)})
end.
get([H],Trie) ->
{Val,_} = element(?POS(H),Trie),
Val;
get([H|T],Trie) ->
case element(?POS(H),Trie) of
{_,nodepth} -> undefined;
{_,SubTrie} -> get(T,SubTrie)
end.

Resources