I ask this because I suddenly realized today that, since the if/else statement we use to build View in SwiftUI is interpreted by ViewBuilder, it may behave differently than the plain old if/else statement in Swift language. Could it be that, for some (e.g. performance) reason, SwiftUI pre-execute both clauses and cache the result? Does anyone know it for sure?
I remember I observed some confusing behavior in the past, which might be explained by this hypothesis. But unfortunately I can't recall an example.
The way a result builder transforms your code is spelled out in SE-0289: Result builders. Section “Selection statements” describes how if/else statements are transformed. It gives the following example:
Consider the following code:
if i == 0 {
"0"
} else if i == 1 {
"1"
} else {
generateFibTree(i)
}
Under this pattern, the example code becomes something like the
following:
let vMerged: PartialResult
if i == 0 {
var firstVar = "0"
var firstBlock = BuilderType.buildBlock(firstVar)
vMerged = BuilderType.buildEither(first: firstBlock)
} else if i == 1 {
var secondVar = "1"
var secondBlock = BuilderType.buildBlock(secondVar)
vMerged = BuilderType.buildEither(second:
BuilderType.buildEither(first: secondBlock))
} else {
var elseVar = generateFibTree(i)
var elseBlock = BuilderType.buildBlock(elseVar)
vMerged = BuilderType.buildEither(second:
BuilderType.buildEither(second: elseBlock))
}
You can also read a detailed description of the transformation algorithm, but I think the example makes it clear enough that it will only execute one branch of an if/else statement.
Ran into a slight issue here below with some of my code.
// sorting
$sortField = $this->sortField;
$sortDir = $this->sortDir;
usort($data, function ($a, $b) use ($sortField, $sortDir) {
if ($sortDir == "asc") {
return $a[$sortField] > $b[$sortField];
} else {
return $a[$sortField] < $b[$sortField];
}
});
A bit confused here on what i need to change.
I read this in another thread.
PHP 8 introduced the Stable Sorting RFC, which (as it sounds) means that all sorting functions in PHP are now "stable".
The spaceship operator is used for comparing two expressions. It returns -1, 0 or 1 when $a is respectively less than, equal to, or greater than $b. Comparisons are performed according to PHP's usual type comparison rules.
So does this mean I need to add the spaceship operator here in the returns:
return $a[$sortField] <=> $b[$sortField];
} else {
return $a[$sortField] <=> $b[$sortField];
}
That is it?
I am just starting with Spring Reactor and want to implement something that I would call 'standard pagination', don't know if there is technical term for this. Basically no matter what start and end date is passed to method, I want to return same amound of data, evenly distributed.
This will be used for some chart drawing in the future.
I figured out rough copy with algorithm that does exactly that, unfortunatelly before I can filter results I need to either count() or take last index() and block to get this number.
This block is surelly not the reactive way to do this, also it makes flux to call DB twice for data (or am I missing something?)
Is there any operator than can help me and get result from count() somehow down the stream for further usage, it would need to compute anyway before stream can be processed, but to get rid of calling DB two times?
I am using mongoDB reactive driver.
Flux<StandardEntity> results = Flux.from(
mongoCollectionManager.getCollection(channel)
.find( and(gte("lastUpdated", begin), lte("lastUpdated", end))))
.map(d -> new StandardEntity(d.getString("price"), d.getString("lastUpdated")));
Long lastIndex = results
.count()
.block();
final double standardPage = 10.0D;
final double step = lastIndex / standardPage;
final double[] counter = {0.0D};
return
results
.take(1)
.mergeWith(
results
.skip(1)
.filter(e -> {
if (lastIndex > standardPage)
if (counter[0] >= step) {
counter[0] = counter[0] - step + 1;
return true;
} else {
counter[0] = counter[0] + 1;
return false;
}
else
return true;
}));
I'm trying to write what I would think of as an extremely simple piece of code in Rascal: Testing if list A contains list B.
Starting out with some very basic code to create a list of strings
public list[str] makeStringList(int Start, int End)
{
return [ "some string with number <i>" | i <- [Start..End]];
}
public list[str] toTest = makeStringList(0, 200000);
My first try was 'inspired' by the sorting example in the tutor:
public void findClone(list[str] In, str S1, str S2, str S3, str S4, str S5, str S6)
{
switch(In)
{
case [*str head, str i1, str i2, str i3, str i4, str i5, str i6, *str tail]:
{
if(S1 == i1 && S2 == i2 && S3 == i3 && S4 == i4 && S5 == i5 && S6 == i6)
{
println("found duplicate\n\t<i1>\n\t<i2>\n\t<i3>\n\t<i4>\n\t<i5>\n\t<i6>");
}
fail;
}
default:
return;
}
}
Not very pretty, but I expected it to work. Unfortunately, the code runs for about 30 seconds before crashing with an "out of memory" error.
I then tried a better looking alternative:
public void findClone2(list[str] In, list[str] whatWeSearchFor)
{
for ([*str head, *str mid, *str end] := In)
if (mid == whatWeSearchFor)
println("gotcha");
}
with approximately the same result (seems to run a little longer before running out of memory)
Finally, I tried a 'good old' C-style approach with a for-loop
public void findClone3(list[str] In, list[str] whatWeSearchFor)
{
cloneLength = size(whatWeSearchFor);
inputLength = size(In);
if(inputLength < cloneLength) return [];
loopLength = inputLength - cloneLength + 1;
for(int i <- [0..loopLength])
{
isAClone = true;
for(int j <- [0..cloneLength])
{
if(In[i+j] != whatWeSearchFor[j])
isAClone = false;
}
if(isAClone) println("Found clone <whatWeSearchFor> on lines <i> through <i+cloneLength-1>");
}
}
To my surprise, this one works like a charm. No out of memory, and results in seconds.
I get that my first two attempts probably create a lot of temporary string objects that all have to be garbage collected, but I can't believe that the only solution that worked really is the best solution.
Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
My relevant eclipse.ini settings are
-XX:MaxPermSize=512m
-Xms512m
-Xss64m
-Xmx1G
We'll need to look to see why this is happening. Note that, if you want to use pattern matching, this is maybe a better way to write it:
public void findClone(list[str] In, str S1, str S2, str S3, str S4, str S5, str S6) {
switch(In) {
case [*str head, S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, *str tail]: {
println("found duplicate\n\t<S1>\n\t<S2>\n\t<S3>\n\t<S4>\n\t<S5>\n\t<S6>");
}
default:
return;
}
}
If you do this, you are taking advantage of Rascal's matcher to actually find the matching strings directly, versus your first example in which any string would match but then you needed to use a number of separate comparisons to see if the match represented the combination you were looking for. If I run this on 110145 through 110150 it takes a while but works and it doesn't seem to grow beyond the heap space you allocated to it.
Also, is there a reason you are using fail? Is this to continue searching?
It's an algorithmic issue like Mark Hills said. In Rascal some short code can still entail a lot of nested loops, almost implicitly. Basically every * splice operator on a fresh variable that you use on the pattern side in a list generates one level of loop nesting, except for the last one which is just the rest of the list.
In your code of findClone2 you are first generating all combinations of sublists and then filtering them using the if construct. So that's a correct algorithm, but probably slow. This is your code:
void findClone2(list[str] In, list[str] whatWeSearchFor)
{
for ([*str head, *str mid, *str end] := In)
if (mid == whatWeSearchFor)
println("gotcha");
}
You see how it has a nested loop over In, because it has two effective * operators in the pattern. The code runs therefore in O(n^2), where n is the length of In. I.e. it has quadratic runtime behaviour for the size of the In list. In is a big list so this matters.
In the following new code, we filter first while generating answers, using fewer lines of code:
public void findCloneLinear(list[str] In, list[str] whatWeSearchFor)
{
for ([*str head, *whatWeSearchFor, *str end] := In)
println("gotcha");
}
The second * operator does not generate a new loop because it is not fresh. It just "pastes" the given list values into the pattern. So now there is actually only one effective * which generates a loop which is the first on head. This one makes the algorithm loop over the list. The second * tests if the elements of whatWeSearchFor are all right there in the list after head (this is linear in the size of whatWeSearchFor and then the last *_ just completes the list allowing for more stuff to follow.
It's also nice to know where the clone is sometimes:
public void findCloneLinear(list[str] In, list[str] whatWeSearchFor)
{
for ([*head, *whatWeSearchFor, *_] := In)
println("gotcha at <size(head)>");
}
Rascal does not have an optimising compiler (yet) which might possibly internally transform your algorithms to equivalent optimised ones. So as a Rascal programmer you are still asked to know the effect of loops on your algorithms complexity and know that * is a very short notation for a loop.
In this simple code:
do {
console.log('o');
} while (false);
jslint produces a warning on the last line saying Unexpected 'false'
I understand why, but I still want to mute it because in these cases that's how I want to have the control flow.
Let's look at what jslint expects in the while statement. From the source:
labeled_stmt('while', function () {
one_space();
var paren = next_token;
funct.loopage += 1;
advance('(');
step_in('control');
no_space();
edge();
this.arity = 'statement';
this.first = expected_relation(expression(0));
if (this.first.id !== 'true') {
expected_condition(this.first, 'unexpected_a');
}
no_space();
step_out(')', paren);
one_space();
this.block = block('while');
if (this.block.disrupt) {
prev_token.warn('strange_loop');
}
funct.loopage -= 1;
return this;
});
It mostly reads like English. 'while', one space, (, no space, expected expression, no space, ).
So let's look at what an expression(0) is. You can read through the source if you're really interested, but to be honest I can't really wrap my head around it either. Sorry. https://github.com/douglascrockford/JSLint/blob/master/jslint.js
As far as I can tell, though, expression(0) traverses the tree of operators and operands, and looks for values with a Right Binding Power greater than 0? And false has a binding power of 0? But variables and comparisons are okay here. I have no clue how that even works. Ask Crockford.
As for shutting up jslint, here is my suggestion:
/*jslint devel: true, continue: true */
var i = 0;
var forever = false;
do {
i = i + 1;
if (i < 5) {
continue;
}
console.log('o');
} while (forever);