I find Erlang's module arity import /n where n is the number of arguments rather bizarre.
In Java and various other languages you can do something like:
import static com.stuff.Blah.myFunction;
Which will import all overloaded Blay.myFunction(..) regardless of parameters.
Besides I guess being explicit why did the language designers decide this was a good idea (I'm not trying to criticize the language... just curious)?
Does it have to do with code swapping?
Or does it have to do with hiding guard methods for recursion? If so why not allow arity on export but no need for arity on import?
Why would I want to be that explicit? That is import the two argument function but not the the three argument of myFunction?
You should be aware of what importing functions in Erlang really does. It is a pure textual transformation. If I do an -import(foo, [bar/1,baz/2]). it means that when I write a call like bar(5) or baz(a, 3) the compiler transforms these to foo:bar(5) and foo:baz(a, 3). That is all it does, nothing else. It doesn't check anything:
It doesn't check if the module foo contains the functions bar/1 or baz/2.
It doesn't even check if the module foo exists.
Really all it does is hide that you are calling a function in another module. That is why the recommendation from experienced Erlangers is "don't use it". It was a mistake. Unfortunately it is much easier to add stupid things than to get rid of them so we were never able to remove it.
"Does it have to do with code swapping?"
Yes, sort of. The unit of all code handling in Erlang is the module. So you compile modules, load modules, purge and delete modules. This means that there are no inter-module dependencies at all in the system and the compiler makes no assumptions about other modules when it is compiling a module. No assumptions are made that the environment in which a module is compiled will be the same in which it is run. That is why it is at runtime the system checks whether the function you are trying to call in another exists, or even if the module itself exists. That is why the import was a purely textual transformation.
Erlang was originally developed in Prolog.
In Prolog, the arity adds additional meaning to what you consider to be the 'arguments, as I understand from a function' in a procedural programming language. But that model does not apply here.
The so-called clauses 'married(X,Y).' and 'married(X,Y,Z).' imply a different kind of relationship 'married', which can be declared as married/2 and married/3.
In procedural programming, 'add(a,b)' or 'add(a,b,c)' are intended to generate the addition of a different number of arguments. That's not immediately the case in Prolog, where it is possible to have the relationship 'a and b, added' or 'a, b and c, added' mean something else. Needless to say, Prolog allows you to declare 'add' as you would expect a function would do. But it allows for more. More available meaning, means more need to control it.
And as in any module system, selecting what you want to expose to external clients makes sense: hence the declaration of arity.
Does it have to do with code swapping?
Kind of. The modules in Erlang are compiled separately (which is part of what allows code swapping), unlike Java classes, so the compiler doesn't know how many versions of the imported function with different arities exist. It could assume that all calls of a function with the given name come from the same module, of course, but the designers likely decided it wasn't particularly useful.
In fact, you rarely want to use imports at all, at least in my experience, just as you rarely use static imports in Java. Just write module:function, like Class.staticMethod.
Or does it have to do with hiding guard methods for recursion?
No, since not importing functions doesn't hide them in any way.
Related
I'm reading some source codes of a project, which is a combination of c++ and lua, they are interwined through luabind.
There is a la.lua file, in which there is a function exec(arg). The lua file also uses functions/variables from other lua file, so it has statements as below in the beginning
module(..., package.seeall);
print("Loading "..debug.getinfo(1).source.."...")
require "client_config"
now I want to run la.exec() from interactive terminal(on linux), but I get errors like
attempt to index global 'lg' (a nil value)
if I want to import la.lua, I get
require "la"
Loading #./la.lua...
./la.lua:68: attempt to index global 'ld' (a nil value)
stack traceback:
./lg.lua:68: in main chunk
[C]: in function 'require'
stdin:1: in main chunk
[C]: ?
what can I do?
Well, what could be going wrong?
(Really general guesswork following, there's not much information in what you provided…)
One option is that you're missing dependencies because the files don't properly require all the things they depend on. (If A depends on & requires B and then C, and C depends on B but doesn't require it because it's implicitly loaded by A, directly loading C will fail.) So if you throw some hours at tracking down & fixing dependencies, things might suddenly work.
(However, depending on how the modules are written this may be impossible without a lot of restructuring. As an example, unless you set package.loaded["foo"] to foo's module table in foo before loading submdules, those submodules cannot require"foo". (Luckily, module does that, in newer code without module that's often forgotten – and then you'll get an endless loop (until the stack overflows) of foo loading other modules which load foo which loads other modules which …) Further, while "fixing" things so they load in the interpreter you might accidentally break the load order used by the program/library under normal operation which you won't notice until you try to run that one normally again. So it may simply cost too much time to fix dependencies. You might still be able to track down enough to construct a long lua -lfoo-lbar… one-off dependency list which might get things to run, but don't depend on it.)
Another option is that there are missing parts provided by C(++) modules. If these are written in the style of a Lua library (i.e. they have luaopen_FOO), they might load in the interpreter. (IIRC that's unlikely for C++ because it expects the main program to be C++-aware but lua is (usually? always?) plain C.) It's also possible that these modules don't work that way and need to be loaded in some other way. Yet another possibility might be that the main program pre-defines things in the Lua state(s) that it creates, which means that there is no module that you could load to get those things.
While there are some more variations on the above, these should be all of the general categories. If you suspect that your problem is the first one (merely missing dependency information), maybe throw some more time at this as you have a pretty good chance of getting it to work. If you suspect it's one of the latter two, there's a very high chance that you won't get it to work (at least not directly).
You might be able to side-step that problem by patching the program to open up a REPL and then do whatever it is you want to do from there. (The simplest way to do that is to call debug.debug(). It's really limited (no multiline, no implicit return, crappy error information), but if you need/want something better, something that behaves very much like the normal Lua REPL can be written in ~30 lines or so of Lua.)
I defined both area/1 and perim/1 in modules sqaure and circle.
I want to import and use them in another module. Here is my import statements:
-import(square, [area/1, perim/1]).
-import(circle, [area/1, perim/1]).
I got these error messages.
~/test.erl:4: function area/1 already imported from square
~/test.erl:4: function perim/1 already imported from square
I know erlang does not support namespace. But since we can qualify a function call by specifying the module (i.e. square:area vs circle:area), I fail to see how the lack of namespace is the source of the error here.
So, what exactly caused the above error and how can I fix it?
In Erlang, "importing" a function from another module means being able to call it as if it were a local function, without the module prefix. So with this directive:
-import(square, [area/1, perim/1]).
you could write area(42) and it would mean the same as square:area(42).
However, if you include area and perim functions from two modules, it would be ambiguous which one you'd actually call when writing area(42).
As you correctly note, you can always qualify the function call with the name of the module, i.e. square:area(42) and circle:area(42) - so I would suggest doing so consistently and removing both import directives. This is also recommended by rule 6.6 of the Erlang Programming Rules - "Don't use import".
My delphi application runs scripts using JvInterpreter (from the Jedi project).
A feature I use is runtime evaluation of expressions.
Script Example:
[...]
ShowMessage(X_SomeName);
[...]
JvInterpreter doesn't know X_SomeName.
When X_SomeName's value is required the scripter calls its OnGetValue-callback.
This points to a function I handle. There I lookup X_SomeName's value and return it.
Then JvInterpreter calls ShowMessage with the value I provided.
Now I consider switching to DelphiWebScript since it has a proper debug-interface and should also be faster than JvInterpreter.
Problem: I didn't find any obvious way to implement what JvInterpreter does with its OnGetValue/OnSetValue functions, though.
X_SomeName should be considered (and actually is, most of the time) a variable which is handled by the host application.
Any Ideas?
Thanks!
You can do that through the language extension mechanism, which has a FindUnknownName method that allows to register symbols on the spot.
It is used in the asm lib module demo, and you can also check the new "AutoExternalValues" test case in ULanguageExtensionTests, which should be closer to what you're after.
I'm currently writing some functions that are related to lists that I could possibly be reused.
My question is:
Are there any conventions or best practices for organizing such functions?
To frame this question, I would ideally like to "extend" the existing lists module such that I'm calling my new function the following way: lists:my_funcion(). At the moment I have lists_extensions:my_function(). Is there anyway to do this?
I read about erlang packages and that they are essentially namespaces in Erlang. Is it possible to define a new namespace for Lists with new Lists functions?
Note that I'm not looking to fork and change the standard lists module, but to find a way to define new functions in a new module also called Lists, but avoid the consequent naming collisions by using some kind namespacing scheme.
Any advice or references would be appreciated.
Cheers.
To frame this question, I would ideally like to "extend" the existing lists module such that I'm calling my new function the following way: lists:my_funcion(). At the moment I have lists_extensions:my_function(). Is there anyway to do this?
No, so far as I know.
I read about erlang packages and that they are essentially namespaces in Erlang. Is it possible to define a new namespace for Lists with new Lists functions?
They are experimental and not generally used. You could have a module called lists in a different namespace, but you would have trouble calling functions from the standard module in this namespace.
I give you reasons why not to use lists:your_function() and instead use lists_extension:your_function():
Generally, the Erlang/OTP Design Guidelines state that each "Application" -- libraries are also an application -- contains modules. Now you can ask the system what application did introduce a specific module? This system would break when modules are fragmented.
However, I do understand why you would want a lists:your_function/N:
It's easier to use for the author of your_function, because he needs the your_function(...) a lot when working with []. When another Erlang programmer -- who knows the stdlb -- reads this code, he will not know what it does. This is confusing.
It looks more concise than lists_extension:your_function/N. That's a matter of taste.
I think this method would work on any distro:
You can make an application that automatically rewrites the core erlang modules of whichever distribution is running. Append your custom functions to the core modules and recompile them before compiling and running your own application that calls the custom functions. This doesn't require a custom distribution. Just some careful planning and use of the file tools and BIFs for compiling and loading.
* You want to make sure you don't append your functions every time. Once you rewrite the file, it will be permanent unless the user replaces the file later. Could use a check with module_info to confirm of your custom functions exist to decide if you need to run the extension writer.
Pseudo Example:
lists_funs() -> ["myFun() -> <<"things to do">>."].
extend_lists() ->
{ok, Io} = file:open(?LISTS_MODULE_PATH, [append]),
lists:foreach(fun(Fun) -> io:format(Io,"~s~n",[Fun]) end, lists_funs()),
file:close(Io),
c(?LISTS_MODULE_PATH).
* You may want to keep copies of the original modules to restore if the compiler fails that way you don't have to do anything heavy if you make a mistake in your list of functions and also use as source anytime you want to rewrite the module to extend it with more functions.
* You could use a list_extension module to keep all of the logic for your functions and just pass the functions to list in this function using funName(Args) -> lists_extension:funName(Args).
* You could also make an override system that searches for existing functions and rewrites them in a similar way but it is more complicated.
I'm sure there are plenty of ways to improve and optimize this method. I use something similar to update some of my own modules at runtime, so I don't see any reason it wouldn't work on core modules also.
i guess what you want to do is to have some of your functions accessible from the lists module. It is good that you would want to convert commonly used code into a library.
one way to do this is to test your functions well, and if their are fine, you copy the functions, paste them in the lists.erl module (WARNING: Ensure you do not overwrite existing functions, just paste at the end of the file). this file can be found in the path $ERLANG_INSTALLATION_FOLDER/lib/stdlib-{$VERSION}/src/lists.erl. Make sure that you add your functions among those exported in the lists module (in the -export([your_function/1,.....])), to make them accessible from other modules. Save the file.
Once you have done this, we need to recompile the lists module. You could use an EmakeFile. The contents of this file would be as follows:
{"src/*", [verbose,report,strict_record_tests,warn_obsolete_guard,{outdir, "ebin"}]}.
Copy that text into a file called EmakeFile. Put this file in the path: $ERLANG_INSTALLATION_FOLDER/lib/stdlib-{$VERSION}/EmakeFile.
Once this is done, go and open an erlang shell and let its pwd(), the current working directory be the path in which the EmakeFile is, i.e. $ERLANG_INSTALLATION_FOLDER/lib/stdlib-{$VERSION}/.
Call the function: make:all() in the shell and you will see that the module lists is recompiled. Close the shell.
Once you open a new erlang shell, and assuming you exported you functions in the lists module, they will be running the way you want, right in the lists module.
Erlang being open source allows us to add functionality, recompile and reload the libraries. This should do what you want, success.
In his article The Nature of Lisp, Slava Akhmechet introduces people to lisp by using Ant/NAnt as an example. Is there an implementation of Ant/NAnt in lisp? Where you can use actual lisp code, instead of xml, for defining things? I've had to deal with creating additions to NAnt, and have wished for a way to bypass the xml system in the way Slava shows could be done.
Ant is a program that interprets commands written in some XML language. You can, as justinhj mentioned in his answer use some XML parser (like the mentioned XMLisp) and convert the XML description in some kind of Lisp data and then write additional code in Lisp. You need to reimplement also some of the Ant interpretation.
Much of the primitive stuff in Ant is not needed in Lisp. Some file operations are built-in in Lisp (delete-file, rename-file, probe-file, ...). Some are missing and need to be implemented - alternative you can use one of the existing libraries. Also note that you can LOAD Lisp files into Lisp and execute code - there is also the REPL - so it comes already with an interactive frontend (unlike Java).
Higher level build systems in Common Lisp usually are implementing an abstraction called 'SYSTEM'. There are several of those. ASDF is a popular choice, but there are others. A system has subsystems and files. A system has also a few options. Its components also have options. A system has either a structural description of the components, a description of the dependencies, or a kind descriptions of 'actions' and their dependencies. Typically these things are implemented in an object-oriented way and you can implement 'actions' as Lisp (generic) functions. Lisp also brings functions like COMPILE-FILE, which will use the Lisp compiler to compile a file. If your code has, say, C files - you would need to call a C compiler - usually through some implementation specific function that allows to call external programs (here the C compiler).
As, mentioned by dmitry-vk, ASDF is a popular choice. LispWorks provides Common Defsystem. Allegro CL has their own DEFSYSTEM. Its DEFSYSTEM manual describes also how to extend it.
All the Lisp solution are using some kind of Lisp syntax (not XML syntax), usually implemented by a macro to describe the system. Once that is read into Lisp, it turns into a data representation - often with CLOS instances for the system, modules, etc.. The actions then are also Lisp functions. Some higher-order functions then walk over the component graph/tree and execute actions of necessary. Some other tools walk over the component graph/tree and return a representation for actions - which is then a proposed plan - the user then can let Lisp execute the whole plan, or parts of the plan.
On a Lisp Machine a simple system description looks like this:
(sct:defsystem scigraph
(:default-pathname "sys:scigraph;"
:required-systems "DWIM")
(:serial "package" "copy" "dump" "duplicate" "random"
"menu-tools" "basic-classes" "draw" "mouse"
"color" "basic-graph" "graph-mixins" "axis"
"moving-object" "symbol" "graph-data" "legend"
"graph-classes" "present" "annotations" "annotated-graph"
"contour" "equation" "popup-accept" "popup-accept-methods"
"duplicate-methods" "frame" "export" "demo-frame"))
Above defines a system SCIGRAPH and all files should be compiled and load in serial order.
Now I can see what the Lisp Machine would do to update the compiled code:
Command: Compile System (a system [default Scigraph]) Scigraph (keywords)
:Simulate (compiling [default Yes]) Yes
The plan for constructing Scigraph version Newest for the Compile
operation is:
Compile RJNXP:>software>scigraph>scigraph>popup-accept-methods.lisp.newest
Load RJNXP:>software>scigraph>scigraph>popup-accept-methods.ibin.newest
It would compile one file and load it - I have the software loaded and changed only this file so far.
For ASDF see the documentation mentioned on the CLIKI page - it works a bit different.
Stuart Halloway's upcoming book Programming Clojure goes through the construction of Lancet throughout the book as an example app. Lancet is a Clojure build system which (optionally) integrates directly with Ant. Source code and examples are available.
If all you want to do is generate Ant XML files using Lisp code, you could use something like clj-html for Clojure or CL-WHO for Common Lisp. Generating XML from Lisp s-exps is fun and easy.
Common Lisp's ASDF (Another System Definition Facility) is analogous to Make/Ant (but not a full analogue — it is aimed at building lisp programs, not generic systems like make or ant). It is extensible with Lisp code (subclassing systems, components, adding operations to systems). E.g., there is an asdf-ecs extensions that allows including (and compiling) C source files into system.
Perhaps you could define things in lisp and convert them to XML at the point you pass them to NAnt.
Something like XMLisp makes it easier to go back and forth between the two representations.
Edit: Actually, xml-emitter would make more sense.