I'm trying to port code from DML 1.2 to DML 1.4. Here is part of code that i ported:
group rx_queue [i < NQUEUES] {
<...>
param desctype = i < 64 #? regs.SRRCTL12[i].DESCTYPE.val #: regs.SRRCTL2[i - 64].DESCTYPE.val; // error occurs here
<...>
}
Error says:
error: non-constant expression: cast(i, int64 ) < 64
How can i specify parameter dependent on index value?
I tried to use if...else instead ternary operator, but it says that conditional parameters are not allowed in DML.
Index parameters in DML are a slightly magical expressions; when used from within parameters, they can evaluate to either a constant or a variable depending on where the parameter is used from. Consider the following example:
group g[i < 5] {
param x = i * 4;
method m() {
log info: "%d", x;
log info: "%d", g[4 - i].x;
log info: "%d", g[2].x;
}
}
i becomes an implicit local variable within the m method, and in params, indices are a bit like implicit macro parameters. When the compiler encounters x in the first log statement, the param will expand to i * 4 right away. In the second log statement, the x param is taken from an object indexed with the expression 4 - i, so param expansion will instead insert (5 - i) * 4. In the third log statement, the x param is taken from a constant indexed object, so it expands to 2 * 4 which collapses into the constant 8.
Most uses of desctype will likely happen from contexts where indices are variable, and the #? expression requires a constant boolean as condition, so this will likely give an error as soon as anyone tries to use it.
I would normally advise you to switch from #? to ? in the definition of the desctype param, but that fails in this particular case: DMLC will report error: array index out of bounds on the i - 64 expression. This error is much more confusing, and happens because DMLC automatically evaluates every parameter once with all zero indices, to smoke out misspelled identifiers; this will include evaluation of SRRCTL2[i-64] which collapses into SRRCTL2[-64] which annoys DMLC.
This is arguably a compiler bug; DMLC should probably be more tolerant in this corner. (Note that even if we would remove the zero-indexed validation step from the compiler, your parameter would still give the same error message if it ever would be explicitly referenced with a constant index, like log info: "%d", rx_queue[0].desctype).
The reason why you didn't get an error in DML 1.2 is that DML 1.2 had a single ternary operator ? that unified 1.4's ? and #?; when evaluated with a constant condition the dead branch would be disregarded without checking for errors. This had some strange effects in other situations, but made your particular use case work.
My concrete advise would be to replace the param with a method; this makes all index variables unconditionally non-constant which avoids the problem:
method desctype() -> (uint64) {
return i < 64 ? regs.SRRCTL12[i].DESCTYPE.val : regs.SRRCTL2[i - 64].DESCTYPE.val;
}
Related
I see a code as below in https://github.com/terraform-aws-modules/terraform-aws-efs/blob/master/examples/complete/main.tf#L58
# Mount targets / security group
mount_targets = { for k, v in toset(range(length(local.azs))) :
element(local.azs, k) => { subnet_id = element(module.vpc.private_subnets, k) }
}
I am trying to understand what => means here. Also this command with for loop, element and =>.
Could anyone explain here please?
In this case the => symbol isn't an independent language feature but is instead just one part of the for expression syntax when the result will be a mapping.
A for expression which produces a sequence (a tuple, to be specific) has the following general shape:
[
for KEY_SYMBOL, VALUE_SYMBOL in SOURCE_COLLECTION : RESULT
if CONDITION
]
(The KEY_SYMBOL, portion and the if CONDITION portion are both optional.)
The result is a sequence of values that resulted from evaluating RESULT (an expression) for each element of SOURCE_COLLECTION for which CONDITION (another expression) evaluated to true.
When the result is a sequence we only need to specify one result expression, but when the result is a mapping (specifically an object) we need to specify both the keys and the values, and so the mapping form has that additional portion including the => symbol you're asking about:
{
for KEY_SYMBOL, VALUE_SYMBOL in SOURCE_COLLECTION : KEY_RESULT => VALUE_RESULT
if CONDITION
}
The principle is the same here except that for each source element Terraform will evaluate both KEY_RESULT and VALUE_RESULT in order to produce a key/value pair to insert into the resulting mapping.
The => marker here is just some punctuation so that Terraform can unambiguously recognize where the KEY_RESULT ends and where the VALUE_RESULT begins. It has no special meaning aside from being a delimiter inside a mapping-result for expression. You could think of it as serving a similar purpose as the comma between KEY_SYMBOL and VALUE_SYMBOL; it has no meaning of its own, and is only there to mark the boundary between two clauses of the overall expression.
When I read a for expression out loud, I typically pronounce => as "maps to". So with my example above, I might pronounce it as "for each key and value in source collection, key result maps to value result if the condition is true".
Lambda expressions use the operator symbol =, which reads as "goes to." Input parameters are specified on the operator's left side, and statement/expressions are specified on the right. Generally, lambda expressions are not directly used in query syntax but are often used in method calls. Query expressions may contain method calls.
Lambda expression syntax features are as follows:
It is a function without a name.
There are no modifiers, such as overloads and overrides.
The body of the function should contain an expression, rather than a statement.
May contain a call to a function procedure but cannot contain a call to a subprocedure.
The return statement does not exist.
The value returned by the function is only the value of the expression contained in the function body.
The End function statement does not exist.
The parameters must have specified data types or be inferred.
Does not allow generic parameters.
Does not allow optional and ParamArray parameters.
Lambda expressions provide shorthand for the compiler, allowing it to emit methods assigned to delegates.
The compiler performs automatic type inference on the lambda arguments, which is a key advantage.
How can I know if I actually need to return an l-value when using FALLBACK?
I'm using return-rw but I'd like to only use return where possible. I want to track if I've actually modified %!attrs or have only just read the value when FALLBACK was called.
Or (alternate plan B) can I attach a callback or something similar to my %!attrs to monitor for changes?
class Foo {
has %.attrs;
submethod BUILD { %!attrs{'bar'} = 'bar' }
# multi method FALLBACK(Str:D $name, *#rest) {
# say 'read-only';
# return %!attrs{$name} if %!attrs«$name»:exists;
# }
multi method FALLBACK(Str:D $name, *#rest) {
say 'read-write';
return-rw %!attrs{$name} if %!attrs«$name»:exists;
}
}
my $foo = Foo.new;
say $foo.bar;
$foo.bar = 'baz';
say $foo.bar;
This feels a bit like a X-Y question, so let's simplify the example, and see if that answers helps in your decisions.
First of all: if you return the "value" of a non-existing key in a hash, you are in fact returning a container that will auto-vivify the key in the hash when assigned to:
my %hash;
sub get($key) { return-rw %hash{$key} }
get("foo") = 42;
dd %hash; # Hash %hash = {:foo(42)}
Please note that you need to use return-rw here to ensure the actual container is returned, rather than just the value in the container. Alternately, you can use the is raw trait, which allows you to just set the last value:
my %hash;
sub get($key) is raw { %hash{$key} }
get("foo") = 42;
dd %hash; # Hash %hash = {:foo(42)}
Note that you should not use return in that case, as that will still de-containerize again.
To get back to your question:
I want to track if I've actually modified %!attrs or have only just read the value when FALLBACK was called.
class Foo {
has %!attrs;
has %!unexpected;
method TWEAK() { %!attrs<bar> = 'bar' }
method FALLBACK(Str:D $name, *#rest) is raw {
if %!attrs{$name}:exists {
%!attrs{$name}
}
else {
%!unexpected{$name}++;
Any
}
}
}
This would either return the container found in the hash, or record the access to the unknown key and return an immutable Any.
Regarding plan B, recording changes: for that you could use a Proxy object for that.
Hope this helps in your quest.
Liz's answer is full of useful info and you've accepted it but I thought the following might still be of interest.
How to know if returning an l-value ... ?
Let's start by ignoring the FALLBACK clause.
You would have to test the value. To deal with Scalars, you must test the .VAR of the value. (For non-Scalar values the .VAR acts like a "no op".) I think (but don't quote me) that Scalar|Array|Hash covers all the l-value super-types:
my \value = 42; # Int is an l-value is False
my \l-value-one = $; # Scalar is an l-value is True
my \l-value-too = #; # Array is an l-value is True
say "{.VAR.^name} is an l-value is {.VAR ~~ Scalar|Array|Hash}"
for value, l-value-one, l-value-too
How to know if returning an l-value when using FALLBACK?
Adding "when using FALLBACK" makes no difference to the answer.
How can I know if I actually need to return an l-value ... ?
Again, let's start by ignoring the FALLBACK clause.
This is a completely different question than "How to know if returning an l-value ... ?". I think it's the core of your question.
Afaik, the answer is, you need to anticipate how the returned value will be used. If there's any chance it'll be used as an l-value, and you want that usage to work, then you need to return an l-value. The language/compiler can't (or at least doesn't) help you make that decision.
Consider some related scenarios:
my $baz := foo.bar;
... (100s of lines of code) ...
$baz = 42;
Unless the first line returns an l-value, the second line will fail.
But the situation is actually much more immediate than that:
routine-foo = 42;
routine-foo is evaluated first, in its entirety, before the lhs = rhs expression is evaluated.
Unless the compiler's resolution of the routine-foo call somehow incorporated the fact that the very next thing to happen would be that the lhs will be assigned to, then there would be no way for a singly or multiply dispatched routine-foo to know whether it can safely return an r-value or must return an l-value.
And the compiler's resolution does not incorporate that. Thus, for example:
multi term:<bar> is rw { ... }
multi term:<bar> { ... }
bar = 99; # Ambiguous call to 'term:<bar>(...)'
I can imagine this one day (N years from now) being solved by a combination of allowing = to be an overloadable operator, robust macros that allow overloading of = being available, and routine resolution being modified so the above ambiguous call could do something equivalent to resolving to the is rw multi. But I doubt it will actually come to pass even with N=10. Perhaps there is another way but I can't think of one at the moment.
How can I know if I actually need to return an l-value when using FALLBACK?
Again, adding "when using FALLBACK" makes no difference to the answer.
I want to track if I've actually modified %!attrs or have only just read the value when FALLBACK was called.
When FALLBACK is called it doesn't know what context it's being called in -- r-value or l-value. Any modification comes after it has already returned.
In other words, whatever solution you come up with will being nothing to do per se with FALLBACK (even if you have to use it to implement some other aspect of whatever it is you're trying to do).
(Even if it were, I suspect trying to solve it via FALLBACK itself would just make matters worse. One can imagine writing two FALLBACK multis, one with an is rw trait, but, as explained above, my imagination doesn't stretch to that making any difference any time soon, if ever, and could only happen if the above imaginary things happened (the macros etc.) and the compiler was also modified to pay attention to the two FALLBACK multi variants, and I'm not at all meaning to suggest that that even makes sense.)
Plan B
Or (alternate plan B) can I attach a callback or something similar to my %!attrs to monitor for changes?
As Lizmat notes, that's the realm of Proxys. And thus your next SO question... :)
I' m having a problem parsing the lat and long cords from TinyGPS++ to a Double or a string. The code that i'm using is:
String latt = ((gps.location.lat(),6));
String lngg = ((gps.location.lng(),6));
Serial.println(latt);
Serial.println(lngg);
The output that i'm getting is:
0.06
Does somebody know what i'm doing wrong? Does it have something to do with rounding? (Math.Round) function in Arduino.
Thanks!
There are two problems:
1. This does not compile:
String latt = ((gps.location.lat(),6));
The error I get is
Wouter.ino:4: warning: left-hand operand of comma has no effect
Wouter:4: error: invalid conversion from 'int' to 'const char*'
Wouter:4: error: initializing argument 1 of 'String::String(const char*)'
There is nothing in the definition of the String class that would allow this statement. I was unable to reproduce printing values of 0.06 (in your question) or 0.006 (in a later comment). Please edit your post to have the exact code that compiles, runs and prints those values.
2. You are unintentionally using the comma operator.
There are two places a comma can be used: to separate arguments to a function call, and to separate multiple expressions which evaluate to the last expression.
You're not calling a function here, so it is the latter use. What does that mean? Here's an example:
int x = (1+y, 2*y, 3+(int)sin(y), 4);
The variable x will be assigned the value of the last expression, 4. There are very few reasons that anyone would actually use the comma operator in this way. It is much more understandable to write:
int x;
1+y; // Just a calculation, result never used
2*y; // Just a calculation, result never used
3 + (int) sin(y); // Just a calculation, result never used
x = 4; // A (trivial) calculation, result stored in 'x'
The compiler will usually optimize out the first 3 statements and only generate code for the last one1. I usually see the comma operator in #define macros that are trying to avoid multiple statements.
For your code, the compiler sees this
((gps.location.lat(),6))
And evaluates it as a call to gps.location.lat(), which returns a double value. The compiler throws this value away, and even warns you that it "has no effect."
Next, it sees a 6, which is the actual value of this expression. The parentheses get popped, leaving the 6 value to be assigned to the left-hand side of the statement, String latt =.
If you look at the declaration of String, it does not define how to take an int like 6 and either construct a new String, or assign it 6. The compiler sees that String can be constructed from const char *, so it tells you that it can't convert a numeric 6 to a const char *.
Unlike a compiler, I think I can understand what you intended:
double latt = gps.location.lat();
double lngg = gps.location.lon();
Serial.println( latt, 6 );
Serial.println( lngg, 6 );
The 6 is intended as an argument to Serial.println. And those arguments are correctly separated by a comma.
As a further bonus, it does not use the String class, which will undoubtedly cause headaches later. Really, don't use String. Instead, hold on to numeric values, like ints and floats, and convert them to text at the last possible moment (e.g, with println).
I have often wished for a compiler that would do what I mean, not what I say. :D
1 Depending on y's type, evaluating the expression 2*y may have side effects that cannot be optimized away. The streaming operator << is a good example of a mathematical operator (left shift) with side effects that cannot be optimized away.
And in your code, calling gps.location.lat() may have modified something internal to the gps or location classes, so the compiler may not have optimized the function call away.
In all cases, the result of the call is not assigned because only the last expression value (the 6) is used for assignment.
I am parsing a C++ like declaration with this scaled down grammar (many details removed to make it a fully working example). It fails to work mysteriously (at least to me). Is it related to the use of context dependent predicate? If yes, what is the proper way to implement the "counting the number of child nodes logic"?
grammar CPPProcessor;
cppCompilationUnit : decl_specifier_seq? init_declarator* ';' EOF;
init_declarator: declarator initializer?;
declarator: identifier;
initializer: '=0';
decl_specifier_seq
locals [int cnt=0]
#init { $cnt=0; }
: decl_specifier+ ;
decl_specifier : #init { System.out.println($decl_specifier_seq::cnt); }
'const'
| {$decl_specifier_seq::cnt < 1}? type_specifier {$decl_specifier_seq::cnt += 1;} ;
type_specifier: identifier ;
identifier:IDENTIFIER;
CRLF: '\r'? '\n' -> channel(2);
WS: [ \t\f]+ -> channel(1);
IDENTIFIER:[_a-zA-Z] [0-9_a-zA-Z]* ;
I need to implement the standard C++ rule that no more than 1 type_specifier is allowed under an decl_specifier_seq.
Semantic predicate before type_specifier seems to be the solution. And the count is naturally declared as a local variable in decl_specifier_seq since nested decl_specifier_seq are possible.
But it seems that a context dependent semantic predicate like the one I used will produce incorrect parsing i.e. a semantic predicate that references $attributes. First an input file with correct result (to illustrate what a normal parse tree looks like):
int t=0;
and the parse tree:
But, an input without the '=0' to aid the parsing
int t;
0
1
line 1:4 no viable alternative at input 't'
1
the parsing failed with the 'no viable alternative' error (the numbers printed in the console is debug print of the $decl_specifier_cnt::cnt value as a verification of the test condition). i.e. the semantic predicate cannot prevent the t from being parsed as type_specifier and t is no longer considered a init_declarator. What is the problem here? Is it because a context dependent predicate having $decl_specifier_seq::cnt is used?
Does it mean context dependent predicate cannot be used to implement "counting the number of child nodes" logic?
EDIT
I tried new versions whose predicate uses member variable instead of the $decl_specifier_seq::cnt and surprisingly the grammar now works proving that the Context Dependent predicate did cause the previous grammar to fail:
....
#parser::members {
public int cnt=0;
}
decl_specifier
#init {System.out.println("cnt:"+cnt); }
:
'const'
| {cnt<1 }? type_specifier {cnt++;} ;
A normal parse tree is resulted:
This gives rise to the question of how to support nested rule if we must use member variables to replace the local variables to avoid context sensitive predicates?
And a weird result is that if I add a /*$ctx*/ after the predicate, it fails again:
decl_specifier
#init {System.out.println("cnt:"+cnt); }
:
'const'
| {cnt<1 /*$ctx*/ }? type_specifier {cnt++;} ;
line 1:4 no viable alternative at input 't'
The parsing failed with no viable alternative. Why the /*$ctx*/ causes the parsing to fail like when $decl_specifier_seq::cnt is used although the actual logic uses a member variable only?
And, without the /*$ctx*/, another issue related to the predicate called before #init block appears(described here)
ANTLR 4 evaluates semantic predicates in two cases.
The generated code evaluates a semantic predicate during parsing, and throws an exception of the evaluation returns false. All predicates traversed during parsing are evaluated in this way, including context-dependent predicates and predicates which do not appear at the left side of a decision.
The prediction method evaluates predicates in order to make correct decisions during parsing. In this case, predicates which appear anywhere other than the left edge of the decision being evaluated are assumed to return true (i.e. they are ignored). In addition, context-dependent predicates are only evaluated if the context data is available. The prediction algorithm will not create context structures that were not already provided by the parsing code. If a context-dependent predicate is encountered during prediction and no context is available, the predicate is assumed to return true (i.e. it is ignored for that decision).
The code generator does not evaluate the semantics of the target language, so it has no way to know that $ctx is semantically irrelevant when it appears in /*$ctx*/. Both cases result in the predicate being treated as context-dependent.
So my rule is
/* Addition and subtraction have the lowest precedence. */
additionExp returns [double value]
: m1=multiplyExp {$value = $m1.value;}
( op=AddOp m2=multiplyExp )* {
if($op != null){ // test if matched
if($op.text == "+" ){
$value += $m2.value;
}else{
$value -= $m2.value;
}
}
}
;
AddOp : '+' | '-' ;
My test ist 3 + 4 but op.text always returns NULL and never a char.
Does anyone know how I can test for the value of AddOp?
In the example from ANTLR4 Actions and Attributes it should work:
stat: ID '=' INT ';'
{
if ( !$block::symbols.contains($ID.text) ) {
System.err.println("undefined variable: "+$ID.text);
}
}
| block
;
Are you sure $op.text is always null? Your comparison appears to check for $op.text=="+" rather than checking for null.
I always start these answers with a suggestion that you migrate all of your action code to listeners and/or visitors when using ANTLR 4. It will clean up your grammar and greatly simplify long-term maintenance of your code.
This is probably the primary problem here: Comparing String objects in Java should be performed using equals: "+".equals($op.text). Notice that I used this ordering to guarantee that you never get a NullPointerException, even if $op.text is null.
I recommend removing the op= label and referencing $AddOp instead.
When you switch to using listeners and visitors, removing the explicit label will marginally reduce the size of the parse tree.
(Only relevant to advanced users) In some edge cases involving syntax errors, labels may not be assigned while the object still exists in the parse tree. In particular, this can happen when a label is assigned to a rule reference (your op label is assigned to a token reference), and an error appears within the labeled rule. If you reference the context object via the automatically generated methods in the listener/visitor, the instances will be available even when the labels weren't assigned, improving your ability to report details of some errors.