I need to write my own expression in polars_lazy. Based on my understanding from the source code I need to write a function that returns Expr::Function. The problem is that in order to construct an object of this type, an object of type FunctionOptions must be provided. The caveat is that this class is public but the members are pub(crate) and thus outside of the create one cannot construct such an object.
Are there ways around this?
I don't think you're meant to directly construct Exprs. Instead, you can use functions like polars_lazy::dsl::col() and polars_lazy::dsl::lit() to create expressions, then use methods on Expr to build up the expression. Several of those methods, such as map() and apply(), will give you an Expr::Function.
Personally I think the Rust API for polars is not well documented enough to really use yet. Although the other answer and comments mention apply and map, they don't mention how or the trade-offs. I hope this answer prompts others to correct me with the "right" way to do things.
So first, here's how to use apply on lazy dataframe, even though lazy dataframes don't take apply directly as a method as eager ones do, and mutating in-place:
// not sure how you'd find this type easily from apply documentation
let o = GetOutput::from_type(DataType::UInt32);
// this mutates two in place
let lf = lf.with_column(col("two").apply(str_to_len, o));
And here's how to use it while not mutating the source column and adding a new output column instead:
let o = GetOutput::from_type(DataType::UInt32);
// this adds new column len, two is unchanged
let lf = lf.with_column(col("two").alias("len").apply(str_to_len, o));
With the str_to_len looking like:
fn str_to_len(str_val: Series) -> Result<Series> {
let x = str_val
.utf8()
.unwrap()
.into_iter()
// your actual custom function would be in this map
.map(|opt_name: Option<&str>| opt_name.map(|name: &str| name.len() as u32))
.collect::<UInt32Chunked>();
Ok(x.into_series())
}
Note that it takes Series rather than &Series and wraps in Result.
With a regular (non-lazy) dataframe, apply still mutates but doesn't require with_column:
df.apply("two", str_to_len).expect("applied");
Whereas eager/non-lazy's with_column doesn't require apply:
// the fn we use to make the column names it too
df.with_column(str_to_len(df.column("two").expect("has two"))).expect("with_column");
And str_to_len has slightly different signature:
fn str_to_len(str_val: &Series) -> Series {
let mut x = str_val
.utf8()
.unwrap()
.into_iter()
.map(|opt_name: Option<&str>| opt_name.map(|name: &str| name.len() as u32))
.collect::<UInt32Chunked>();
// NB. this is naming the chunked array, before we even get to a series
x.rename("len");
x.into_series()
}
I know there's reasons to have lazy and eager operate differently, but I wish the Rust documentation made this easier to figure out.
Related
I am a beginner in Rust, I haven't finished the "Book" yet, but one thing made me ask this question.
Considering this code:
fn main() {
let mut entries = HashMap::new();
entries.insert("First".to_string(), 10);
entries.entry("Second".to_string()).or_insert(20);
assert_eq!(10, *entries.get("First").unwrap());
entries.entry(String::from("First")).and_modify(|value| { *value = 20});
assert_eq!(20, *entries.get("First").unwrap());
entries.insert("First".to_string(), 30);
assert_eq!(30, *entries.get("First").unwrap());
}
I have used two ways of modifying an entry:
entries.entry(String::from("First")).and_modify(|value| { *value = 20});
entries.insert("First".to_string(), 30);
The insert way looks clunkish, and I woundn't personally use it to modify a value in an entry, but... it works. Nevertheless, is there a reason not to use it other than semantics? As I said, I'd rather use the entry construct than just bruteforcing an update using insert with an existing key. Something a newbie Rustacean like me could not possibly know?
insert() is a bit more idiomatic when you are replacing an entire value, particularly when you don't know (or care) if the value was present to begin with.
get_mut() is more idiomatic when you want to do something to a value that requires mutability, such as replacing only one field of a struct or invoking a method that requires a mutable reference. If you know the key is present you can use .unwrap(), otherwise you can use one of the other Option utilities or match.
entry(...).and_modify(...) by itself is rarely idiomatic; it's more useful when chaining other methods of Entry together, such as where you want to modify a value if it exists, otherwise add a different value. You might see this pattern when working with maps where the values are totals:
entries.entry(key)
.and_modify(|v| *v += 1)
.or_insert(1);
In rust, I have a function that generates a vector of Strings, and I'd like to return this vector along with a reference to one of the strings. Obviously, I would need to appropriately specify the lifetime of the reference, since it is valid only when the vector is in scope. However, but I can't get this to work.
Here is a minimal example of a failed attempt:
fn foo<'a>() -> ('a Vec<String>, &'a String) {
let x = vec!["some", "data", "in", "the", "vector"].iter().map(|s| s.to_string()).collect::<Vec<String>>();
(x, &x[1])
}
(for this example, I know I could return the index to the vector, but my general problem is more complex. Also, I'd like to understand how to achieve this)
Rust doesn't allow you to do that without unsafe code. Probably your best option is to return the vector with the index of the element in question.
This is conceptually very similar to trying to create a self-referential struct. See this for more on why this is challenging.
I'm trying to create a vector of Strings to test arg parsing (since this is what std::env::args() returns) but struggling with how to do this concisely.
What I want:
let test_args = vec!["-w", "60", "arg"]; // should array of Strings
let expected_results = my_arg_parser(test_args);
This obviously doesn't work because the vectors contents are all &strs.
Using String::from but works but doesn't scale well and is ugly :)
let args = vec![String::from("-w"), String::from("60"), String::from("args")];
I could map over the references and return string objects, but this seems very verbose:
let args = vec!["-w", "60", "args"].iter().map(|x| x.to_string()).collect::<Vec<String>>();
Should I just create a helper function to do the conversion, or is there an easier way?
You can use the to_string() method directly on the literals:
let test_args = vec!["-w".to_string(), "60".to_string(), "arg".to_string()];
Otherwise a macro to do this would be as simple as:
macro_rules! vec_of_strings {
($($x:expr),*) => (vec![$($x.to_string()),*]);
}
See play.rust.org example
JDemler already provided a nice answer. I have two additional things to say:
First, you can also use into() instead of to_string() for all elements but the first. This is slightly shorter and also equivalent to to_string()/String::from(). Looks like this:
vec!["a".to_string(), "b".into(), "c".into()];
Second, you might want to redesign your arg parsing. I will assume here that you won't mutate the Strings you get from env::args(). I imagine your current function to look like:
fn parse_args(args: &[String]) -> SomeResult { ... }
But you can make that function more generic by not accepting Strings but AsRef<str>. It would look like this:
fn parse_args<T: AsRef<str>>(args: &[T]) -> SomeResult { ... }
In the documentation you can see that String as well as str itself implement that trait. Therefore you can pass a &[String] and a &[&str] into your function. Awesome, eh?
In similar fashion, if you want to accept anything that can be converted into an owned String, you can accept <T: Into<String>> and if you want to return either a String or an &str, you can use Cow. You can read more about that here and here.
Apart from all that: there are plenty of good CLI-Arg parsers out there (clap-rs, docopt-rs, ...), so you might not need to write your own.
I agree that Lukas Kalbertodt's answer is the best — use generics to accept anything that can look like a slice of strings.
However, you can clean up the map version a little bit:
There's no need to allocate a vector for the initial set of strings.
There's no need to use the complete type (Vec<String>); you could specify just the collection (Vec<_>). If you pass the result to a function that only accepts a Vec<String>, then you don't need any explicit types at all; it can be completely inferred.
You can use a slightly shorter s.into() in the map.
fn do_stuff_with_args(args: Vec<String>) { println!("{}", args.len()) }
fn main() {
let args = ["-w", "60", "args"].iter().map(|&s| s.into()).collect();
do_stuff_with_args(args);
}
I have been playing with Rust by porting my Score4 AI engine to it - basing the work on my functional-style implementation in OCaml. I specifically wanted to see how Rust fares with functional-style code.
The end result: It works, and it's very fast - much faster than OCaml. It almost touches the speed of imperative-style C/C++ - which is really cool.
There's a thing that troubles me, though — why do I need two ampersands in the last line of this code?
let moves_and_scores: Vec<_> = moves_and_boards
.iter()
.map(|&(column,board)| (column, score_board(&board)))
.collect();
let target_score = if maximize_or_minimize {
ORANGE_WINS
} else {
YELLOW_WINS
};
if let Some(killer_move) = moves_and_scores.iter()
.find(|& &(_,score)| score==target_score) {
...
I added them is because the compiler errors "guided" me to it; but I am trying to understand why... I used the trick mentioned elsewhere in Stack Overflow to "ask" the compiler to tell me what type something is:
let moves_and_scores: Vec<_> = moves_and_boards
.iter()
.map(|&(column,board)| (column, score_board(&board)))
.collect();
let () = moves_and_scores;
...which caused this error:
src/main.rs:108:9: 108:11 error: mismatched types:
expected `collections::vec::Vec<(u32, i32)>`,
found `()`
(expected struct `collections::vec::Vec`,
found ()) [E0308]
src/main.rs:108 let () = moves_and_scores;
...as I expected, moves_and_scores is a vector of tuples: Vec<(u32, i32)>. But then, in the immediate next line, iter() and find() force me to use the hideous double ampersands in the closure parameter:
if let Some(killer_move) = moves_and_scores.iter()
.find(|& &(_,score)| score==target_score) {
Why does the find closure need two ampersands? I could see why it may need one (pass the tuple by reference to save time/space) but why two? Is it because of the iter? That is, is the iter creating references, and then find expects a reference on each input, so a reference on a reference?
If this is so, isn't this, arguably, a rather ugly design flaw in Rust?
In fact, I would expect find and map and all the rest of the functional primitives to be parts of the collections themselves. Forcing me to iter() to do any kind of functional-style work seems burdensome, and even more so if it forces this kind of "double ampersands" in every possible functional chain.
I am hoping I am missing something obvious - any help/clarification most welcome.
This here
moves_and_scores.iter()
gives you an iterator over borrowed vector elements. If you follow the API doc what type this is, you'll notice that it's just the iterator for a borrowed slice and this implements Iterator with Item=&T where T is (u32, i32) in your case.
Then, you use find which takes a predicate which takes a &Item as parameter. Sice Item already is a reference in your case, the predicate has to take a &&(u32, i32).
pub trait Iterator {
...
fn find<P>(&mut self, predicate: P) -> Option<Self::Item>
where P: FnMut(&Self::Item) -> bool {...}
... ^
It was probably defined like this because it's only supposed to inspect the item and return a bool. This does not require the item being passed by value.
If you want an iterator over (u32, i32) you could write
moves_and_scores.iter().cloned()
cloned() converts the iterator from one with an Item type &T to one with an Item type T if T is Clone. Another way to do it would be to use into_iter() instead of iter().
moves_and_scores.into_iter()
The difference between the two is that the first option clones the borrowed elements while the 2nd one consumes the vector and moves the elements out of it.
By writing the lambda like this
|&&(_, score)| score == target_score
you destructure the "double reference" and create a local copy of the i32. This is allowed since i32 is a simple type that is Copy.
Instead of destructuring the parameter of your predicate you could also write
|move_and_score| move_and_score.1 == target_score
because the dot operator automatically dereferences as many times as needed.
I started to use clippy as a linter. Sometimes, it shows this warning:
writing `&Vec<_>` instead of `&[_]` involves one more reference and cannot be
used with non-Vec-based slices. Consider changing the type to `&[...]`,
#[warn(ptr_arg)] on by default
I changed the parameter to a slice but this adds boilerplate on the call side. For instance, the code was:
let names = args.arguments.iter().map(|arg| {
arg.name.clone()
}).collect();
function(&names);
but now it is:
let names = args.arguments.iter().map(|arg| {
arg.name.clone()
}).collect::<Vec<_>>();
function(&names);
otherwise, I get the following error:
error: the trait `core::marker::Sized` is not implemented for the type
`[collections::string::String]` [E0277]
So I wonder if there is a way to convert an Iterator to a slice or avoid having to specify the collected type in this specific case.
So I wonder if there is a way to convert an Iterator to a slice
There is not.
An iterator only provides one element at a time, whereas a slice is about getting several elements at a time. This is why you first need to collect all the elements yielded by the Iterator into a contiguous array (Vec) before being able to use a slice.
The first obvious answer is not to worry about the slight overhead, though personally I would prefer placing the type hint next to the variable (I find it more readable):
let names: Vec<_> = args.arguments.iter().map(|arg| {
arg.name.clone()
}).collect();
function(&names);
Another option would be for function to take an Iterator instead (and an iterator of references, at that):
let names = args.arguments.iter().map(|arg| &arg.name);
function(names);
After all, iterators are more general, and you can always "realize" the slice inside the function if you need to.
So I wonder if there is a way to convert an Iterator to a slice
There is. (in applicable cases)
Got here searching "rust iter to slice", for my use-case, there was a solution:
fn main() {
// example struct
#[derive(Debug)]
struct A(u8);
let list = vec![A(5), A(6), A(7)];
// list_ref passed into a function somewhere ...
let list_ref: &[A] = &list;
let mut iter = list_ref.iter();
// consume some ...
let _a5: Option<&A> = iter.next();
// now want to eg. return a slice of the rest
let slice: &[A] = iter.as_slice();
println!("{:?}", slice); // [A(6), A(7)]
}
That said, .as_slice is defined on an iter of an existing slice, so the previous answerer was correct in that if you've got, eg. a map iter, you would need to collect it first (so there is something to slice from).
docs: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/slice/struct.Iter.html#method.as_slice