I came across some code today that looked somewhat like this:
subroutine foo()
real blah
integer bar,k,i,j,ll
integer :: n_called=1
save integer
...
end
It seems like the intent here was probably save n_called, but is that even a valid statment to save all integers -- or is it implicitly declaring a variable named integer and saving it?
The second interpretation is correct. Fortran has many keywords, INTEGER being one of them, but it has no reserved words, which means that keywords can be used as identifiers, though this is usually a terrible idea (but nevertheless it carries on to C# where one can prefix a keyword with # and use it as an identifier, right?)
The SAVE statement, even if it was intended for n_called is superficial. Fortran automatically saves all variables that have initialisers and that's why the code probably works as intended.
integer :: n_called=1
Here n_called is automatically SAVE. This usually comes as a really bad surprise to C/C++ programmers forced to maintain/extend/create new Fortran code :)
I agree with your 2nd interpretation, that is, the statement save integer implicitly declares a variable called integer and gives it the save attribute. Fortran, of course, has no rule against using keywords as program entity names, though most sensible software developers do have such a rule.
If I try to compile your code snippet as you have presented it, my compiler (Intel Fortran) makes no complaint. If I insert implicit none at the right place it reports the error
This name does not have a type, and must have an explicit type. [INTEGER]
The other interpretation, that it gives the save attribute to all integer variables, seems at odds with the language standards and it's not a variation that I've ever come across.
Related
Have a pretty simple function for taking the name of a month, "Jan", "Feb", etc. and converting to the number of the month:
function month_num(month_str)
character*(*) :: month_str
character*3 :: month_names(12)
integer :: ipos(1),location(12)
data month_names/'Jan','Feb','Mar','Apr','May','Jun','Jul','Aug', &
'Sep','Oct','Nov','Dec'/
where (month_names==month_str) location=1
ipos = maxloc(location)
month_num = ipos(1)
end function
And OK, yes, I know it's dangerous to not define "location" before using it.
Problem: During execution of the function, if input is OK, some value of "location" will be set to 1. And, to my surprise, when the function is called again, that value will still be equal to 1. And this, of course, really messes things up. So I figured I would fix it with a new line
data location/12*0/
And I got the same problem.
Finally, I put in
location = 0
just before the "where" statement, and that fixed everything.
So, I thought FORTRAN subprograms would not save data unless the variables were declared with the "SAVE" attribute. Also, with many compilers, you can invoke some sort of "static" option that will keep everything saved. I did neither of these here, but the "location" array was saved just the same. Can someone enlighten me on the rules of when FORTRAN saves data and when not? Thanks.
The value of a variable local to a procedure is preserved across (ie it is SAVEd) in one of two ways:
The programmer specifies the SAVE attribute when declaring the variable, for example:
REAL, SAVE :: var1
The programmer initialises the variable upon declaration, for example
REAL :: var1 = 3.1415
This second, implicit, behaviour is one features of Fortran which seem designed to catch out the programmer, and not just beginners. Note that the value the variable has upon re-invocation is not, in the 2nd example 3.1415, but whatever value it had when the last invocation exited.
It is common for compilers to behave as if a variable is SAVEd when the programmer has not exercised either of these options, perhaps the memory locations used by one invocation of a procedure are not overwritten before the next invocation. But this behaviour is not to be relied on.
The situation is slightly different for variables declared in modules. Again any variable with the SAVE attribute is saved but any other variable only retains its value while the module is use-associated with a program unit which has started executing but not finished. Again some compilers, and some executions of some programs, may behave as if the value of a module variable is preserved despite the module going out of scope but this is non-standard behaviour and not to be relied on.
This behaviour is scheduled to change in Fortran 2008 when variables defined in modules will acquire the SAVE attribute implicitly.
Personally I like to explicitly SAVE variables even when I am sure that they would get the attribute implicitly, it makes the code just a bit easier to understand next time round.
In F# mantra there seems to be a visceral avoidance of null, Nullable<T> and its ilk. In exchange, we are supposed to instead use option types. To be honest, I don't really see the difference.
My understanding of the F# option type is that it allows you to specify a type which can contain any of its normal values, or None. For example, an Option<int> allows all of the values that an int can have, in addition to None.
My understanding of the C# nullable types is that it allows you to specify a type which can contain any of its normal values, or null. For example, a Nullable<int> a.k.a int? allows all of the values that an int can have, in addition to null.
What's the difference? Do some vocabulary replacement with Nullable and Option, null and None, and you basically have the same thing. What's all the fuss over null about?
F# options are general, you can create Option<'T> for any type 'T.
Nullable<T> is a terrifically weird type; you can only apply it to structs, and though the Nullable type is itself a struct, it cannot be applied to itself. So you cannot create Nullable<Nullable<int>>, whereas you can create Option<Option<int>>. They had to do some framework magic to make that work for Nullable. In any case, this means that for Nullables, you have to know a priori if the type is a class or a struct, and if it's a class, you need to just use null rather than Nullable. It's an ugly leaky abstraction; it's main value seems to be with database interop, as I guess it's common to have `int, or no value' objects to deal with in database domains.
Im my opinion, the .Net framework is just an ugly mess when it comes to null and Nullable. You can argue either that F# 'adds to the mess' by having Option, or that it rescues you from the mess by suggesting that you avoid just null/Nullable (except when absolutely necessary for interop) and focus on clean solutions with Options. You can find people with both opinions.
You may also want to see
Best explanation for languages without null
Because every .NET reference type can have this extra, meaningless value—whether or not it ever is null, the possibility exists and you must check for it—and because Nullable uses null as its representation of "nothing," I think it makes a lot of sense to eliminate all that weirdness (which F# does) and require the possibility of "nothing" to be explicit. Option<_> does that.
What's the difference?
F# lets you choose whether or not you want your type to be an option type and, when you do, encourages you to check for None and makes the presence or absence of None explicit in the type.
C# forces every reference type to allow null and does not encourage you to check for null.
So it is merely a difference in defaults.
Do some vocabulary replacement with Nullable and Option, null and None, and you basically have the same thing. What's all the fuss over null about?
As languages like SML, OCaml and Haskell have shown, removing null removes a lot of run-time errors from real code. To the extent that the original creator of null even describes it as his "billion dollar mistake".
The advantage to using option is that it makes explicit that a variable can contain no value, whereas nullable types leave it implicit. Given a definition like:
string val = GetValue(object arg);
The type system does not document whether val can ever be null, or what will happen if arg is null. This means that repetitive checks need to be made at function boundaries to validate the assumptions of the caller and callee.
Along with pattern matching, code using option types can be statically checked to ensure both cases are handled, for example the following code results in a warning:
let f (io: int option) = function
| Some i -> i
As the OP mentions, there isn't much of a semantic difference between using the words optional or nullable when conveying optional types.
The problem with the built-in null system becomes apparent when you want to express non-optional types.
In C#, all reference types can be null. So, if we relied on the built-in null to express optional values, all reference types are forced to be optional ... whether the developer intended it or not. There is no way for a developer to specify a non-optional reference type (until C# 8).
So, the problem isn't with the semantic meaning of null. The problem is null is hijacked by reference types.
As a C# developer, i wish I could express optionality using the built-in null system. And that is exactly what C# 8 is doing with nullable reference types.
Well, one difference is that for a Nullable<T>, T can only be a struct which reduces the use cases dramatically.
Also make sure to read this answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/947869/288703
I am able to understand immutability with python (surprisingly simple too). Let's say I assign a number to
x = 42
print(id(x))
print(id(42))
On both counts, the value I get is
505494448
My question is, does python interpreter allot ids to all the numbers, alphabets, True/False in the memory before the environment loads? If it doesn't, how are the ids kept track of? Or am I looking at this in the wrong way? Can someone explain it please?
What you're seeing is an implementation detail (an internal optimization) calling interning. This is a technique (used by implementations of a number of languages including Java and Lua) which aliases names or variables to be references to single object instances where that's possible or feasible.
You should not depend on this behavior. It's not part of the language's formal specification and there are no guarantees that separate literal references to a string or integer will be interned nor that a given set of operations (string or numeric) yielding a given object will be interned against otherwise identical objects.
I've heard that the C Python implementation does include a set of the first hundred or so integers as statically instantiated immutable objects. I suspect that other very high level language run-time libraries are likely to include similar optimizations: the first hundred integers are used very frequently by most non-trivial fragments of code.
In terms of how such things are implemented ... for strings and larger integers it would make sense for Python to maintain these as dictionaries. Thus any expression yielding an integer (and perhaps even floats) and strings (at least sufficiently short strings) would be hashed, looked up in the appropriate (internal) object dictionary, added if necessary and then returned as references to the resulting object.
You can do your own similar interning of any sorts of custom object you like by wrapping the instantiation in your own calls to your own class static dictionary.
I am having a brain freeze on f#'s option types. I have 3 books and read all I can but I am not getting them.
Does someone have a clear and concise explanation and maybe a real world example?
TIA
Gary
Brian's answer has been rated as the best explanation of option types, so you should probably read it :-). I'll try to write a more concise explanation using a simple F# example...
Let's say you have a database of products and you want a function that searches the database and returns product with a specified name. What should the function do when there is no such product? When using null, the code could look like this:
Product p = GetProduct(name);
if (p != null)
Console.WriteLine(p.Description);
A problem with this approach is that you are not forced to perform the check, so you can easily write code that will throw an unexpected exception when product is not found:
Product p = GetProduct(name);
Console.WriteLine(p.Description);
When using option type, you're making the possibility of missing value explicit. Types defined in F# cannot have a null value and when you want to write a function that may or may not return value, you cannot return Product - instead you need to return option<Product>, so the above code would look like this (I added type annotations, so that you can see types):
let (p:option<Product>) = GetProduct(name)
match p with
| Some prod -> Console.WriteLine(prod.Description)
| None -> () // No product found
You cannot directly access the Description property, because the reuslt of the search is not Product. To get the actual Product value, you need to use pattern matching, which forces you to handle the case when a value is missing.
Summary. To summarize, the purpose of option type is to make the aspect of "missing value" explicit in the type and to force you to check whether a value is available each time you work with values that may possibly be missing.
See,
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd233245.aspx
The intuition behind the option type is that it "implements" a null-value. But in contrast to null, you have to explicitly require that a value can be null, whereas in most other languages, references can be null by default. There is a similarity to SQLs NULL/NOT NULL if you are familiar with those.
Why is this clever? It is clever because the language can assume that no output of any expression can ever be null. Hence, it can eliminate all null-pointer checks from the code, yielding a lot of extra speed. Furthermore, it unties the programmer from having to check for the null-case all the same, should he or she want to produce safe code.
For the few cases where a program does require a null value, the option type exist. As an example, consider a function which asks for a key inside an .ini file. The key returned is an integer, but the .ini file might not contain the key. In this case, it does make sense to return 'null' if the key is not to be found. None of the integer values are useful - the user might have entered exactly this integer value in the file. Hence, we need to 'lift' the domain of integers and give it a new value representing "no information", i.e., the null. So we wrap the 'int' to an 'int option'. Now, if there is no integer value we will get 'None' and if there is an integer value, we will get 'Some(N)' where N is the integer value in question.
There are two beautiful consequences of the choice. One, we can use the general pattern match features of F# to discriminate the values in e.g., a case expression. Two, the framework of algebraic datatypes used to define the option type is exposed to the programmer. That is, if there were no option type in F# we could have created it ourselves!
In the process of transforming a given efficient pointer-based hash map implementation into a generic hash map implementation, I stumbled across the following problem:
I have a class representing a hash node (the hash map implementation uses a binary tree)
THashNode <KEY_TYPE, VALUE_TYPE> = class
public
Key : KEY_TYPE;
Value : VALUE_TYPE;
Left : THashNode <KEY_TYPE, VALUE_TYPE>;
Right : THashNode <KEY_TYPE, VALUE_TYPE>;
end;
In addition to that there is a function that should return a pointer to a hash node. I wanted to write
PHashNode = ^THashNode <KEY_TYPE, VALUE_TYPE>
but that doesn't compile (';' expected but '<' found).
How can I have a pointer to a generic type?
And adressed to Barry Kelly: if you read this: yes, this is based on your hash map implementation. You haven't written such a generic version of your implementation yourself, have you? That would save me some time :)
Sorry, Smasher. Pointers to open generic types are not supported because generic pointer types are not supported, although it is possible (compiler bug) to create them in certain circumstances (particularly pointers to nested types inside a generic type); this "feature" can't be removed in an update in case we break someone's code. The limitation on generic pointer types ought to be removed in the future, but I can't make promises when.
If the type in question is the one in JclStrHashMap I wrote (or the ancient HashList unit), well, the easiest way to reproduce it would be to change the node type to be a class and pass around any double-pointers as Pointer with appropriate casting. However, if I were writing that unit again today, I would not implement buckets as binary trees. I got the opportunity to write the dictionary in the Generics.Collections unit, though with all the other Delphi compiler work time was too tight before shipping for solid QA, and generic feature support itself was in flux until fairly late.
I would prefer to implement the hash map buckets as one of double-hashing, per-bucket dynamic arrays or linked lists of cells from a contiguous array, whichever came out best from tests using representative data. The logic is that cache miss cost of following links in tree/list ought to dominate any difference in bucket search between tree and list with a good hash function. The current dictionary is implemented as straight linear probing primarily because it was relatively easy to implement and worked with the available set of primitive generic operations.
That said, the binary tree buckets should have been an effective hedge against poor hash functions; if they were balanced binary trees (=> even more modification cost), they would be O(1) on average and O(log n) worst case performance.
To actually answer your question, you can't make a pointer to a generic type, because "generic types" don't exist. You have to make a pointer to a specific type, with the type parameters filled in.
Unfortunately, the compiler doesn't like finding angle brackets after a ^. But it will accept the following:
TGeneric<T> = record
value: T;
end;
TSpecific = TGeneric<string>;
PGeneric = ^TSpecific;
But "PGeneric = ^TGeneric<string>;" gives a compiler error. Sounds like a glitch to me. I'd report that over at QC if I was you.
Why are you trying to make a pointer to an object, anyway? Delphi objects are a reference type, so they're pointers already. You can just cast your object reference to Pointer and you're good.
If Delphi supported generic pointer types at all, it would have to look like this:
type
PHashNode<K, V> = ^THashNode<K, V>;
That is, mention the generic parameters on the left side where you declare the name of the type, and then use those parameters in constructing the type on the right.
However, Delphi does not support that. See QC 66584.
On the other hand, I'd also question the necessity of having a pointer to a class type at all. Generic or not. they are needed only very rarely.
There's a generic hash map called TDictionary in the Generics.Collections unit. Unfortunately, it's badly broken at the moment, but it's apparently going to be fixed in update #3, which is due out within a matter of days, according to Nick Hodges.