I am new to hypothesis and I am looking for a way to generate a pair of similar recursive objects.
My strategy for a single object is similar to this example in the hypothesis documentation.
I want to test a function which takes a pair of recursive objects A and B and the side effect of this function should be that A==B.
My first approach would be to write a test which gets two independent objects, like:
#given(my_objects(), my_objects())
def test_is_equal(a, b):
my_function(a, b)
assert a == b
But the downside is that hypothesis does not know that there is a dependency between this two objects and so they can be completely different. That is a valid test and I want to test that too.
But I also want to test complex recursive objects which are only slightly different.
And maybe that hypothesis is able to shrink a pair of very different objects where the test fails to a pair of only slightly different objects where the test fails in the same way.
This one is tricky - to be honest I'd start by writing the same test you already have above, and just turn up the max_examples setting a long way. Then I'd probably write some traditional unit tests, because getting specific data distributions out of Hypothesis is explicitly unsupported (i.e. we try to break everything that assumes a particular distribution, using some combination of heuristics and a bit of feedback).
How would I actually generate similar recursive structures though? I'd use a #composite strategy to build them at the same time, and for each element or subtree I'd draw a boolean and if True draw a different element or subtree to use in the second object. Note that this will give you a strategy for a tuple of two objects and you'll need to unpack it inside the test; that's unavoidable if you want them to be related.
Seriously do try just cracking up max_examples on the naive approach first though, running Hypothesis for ~an hour is amazingly effective and I would even expect it to shrink the output fairly well.
Related
I have been working a a very dense set of calculations. It all is to support a specific problem I have.
But the nature of the problem is no different than this. Suppose I develop a class called 'Matrix' that has the machinery to implement matrices. Instantiation would presumably take a list of lists, which would be the matrix entries.
Now I want to provide a multiply method. I have two choices. First, I could define a method like so:
class Matrix():
def __init__(self, entries)
# do the obvious here
return
def determinant(self):
# again, do the obvious here
return result_of_calcs
def multiply(self, b):
# again do the obvious here
return
If I do this, the call signature for two matrix objects, a and b, is
a.multiply(b)...
The other choice is a #staticmethod. Then, the definition looks like:
#staticethod
def multiply(a,b):
# do the obvious thing.
Now the call signature is:
z = multiply(a,b)
I am unclear when one is better than the other. The free-standing function is not truly part of the class definition, but who cares? it gets the job done, and because Python allows "reaching into an object" references from outside, it seems able to do everything. In practice they'll (the class and the method) end up in the same module, so they're at least linked there.
On the other hand, my understanding of the #staticmethod approach is that the function is now part of the class definition (it defines one of the methods), but the method gets no "self" passed in. In a way this is nice because the call signature is the much better looking:
z = multiply(a,b)
and the function can access all the instances' methods and attributes.
Is this the right way to view it? Are there strong reasons to do one or the other? In what ways are they not equivalent?
I have done quite a bit of Python programming since answering this question.
Suppose we have a file named matrix.py, and it has a bunch of code for manipulating matrices. We want to provide a matrix multiply method.
The two approaches are:
define a free:standing function with the signature multiply(x,y)
make it a method of all matrices: x.multiply(y)
Matrix multiply is what I will call a dyadic function. In other words, it always takes two arguments.
The temptation is to use #2, so that a matrix object "carries with it everywhere" the ability to be multiplied. However, the only thing it makes sense to multiply it with is another matrix object. In such cases there are two equally good ways to do that, viz:
z=x.multiply(y)
or
z=y.multiply(x)
However, a better way to do it is to define a function inside the file that is:
multiply(x,y)
multiply(), as such, is a function any code using the 'library' expects to have available. It need not be associated with each matrix. And, since the user will be doing an 'import', they will get the multiply method. This is better code.
What I was wrongly confounding was two things that led me to the method attached to every object instance:
Functions which need to be generally available inside the file that should be
exposed outside it; and
Functions which are needed only inside the file.
multiply() is an example of type 1. Any matrix 'library' ought to likely define matrix multiplication.
What I was worried about was needing to expose all the 'internal' functions. For example, suppose we want to make externally available matrix add(), multiple() and invert(). Suppose, however, we did not want to make externally available - but needed inside - determinant().
One way to 'protect' users is to make determinant a function (a def statement) inside the class declaration for matrices. Then it is protected from exposure. However, nothing stops a user of the code from reaching in if they know the internals, by using the method matrix.determinant().
In the end it comes down to convention, largely. It makes more sense to expose a matrix multiply function which takes two matrices, and is called like multiply(x,y). As for the determinant function, instead of 'wrapping it' in the class, it makes more sense to define it as __determinant(x) at the same level as the class definition for matrices.
You can never truly protect internal methods by their declaration, it seems. The best you can do is warn users. the "dunder" approach gives warning 'this is not expected to be called outside the code in this file'.
I'm trying out the random number generation from the new library in C++11 for a simple dice class. I'm not really grasping what actually happens but the reference shows an easy example:
std::default_random_engine generator;
std::uniform_int_distribution<int> distribution(1,6);
int dice_roll = distribution(generator);
I read somewhere that with the "old" way you should only seed once (e.g. in the main function) in your application ideally. However I'd like an easily reusable dice class. So would it be okay to use this code block in a dice::roll() method although multiple dice objects are instantiated and destroyed multiple times in an application?
Currently I made the generator as a class member and the last two lines are in the dice:roll() methods. It looks okay but before I compute statistics I thought I'd ask here...
Think of instantiating a pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) as digging a well - it's the overhead you have to go through to be able to get access to water. Generating instances of a pseudo-random number is like dipping into the well. Most people wouldn't dig a new well every time they want a drink of water, why invoke the unnecessary overhead of multiple instantiations to get additional pseudo-random numbers?
Beyond the unnecessary overhead, there's a statistical risk. The underlying implementations of PRNGs are deterministic functions that update some internally maintained state to generate the next value. The functions are very carefully crafted to give a sequence of uncorrelated (but not independent!) values. However, if the state of two or more PRNGs is initialized identically via seeding, they will produce the exact same sequences. If the seeding is based on the clock (a common default), PRNGs initialized within the same tick of the clock will produce identical results. If your statistical results have independence as a requirement then you're hosed.
Unless you really know what you're doing and are trying to use correlation induction strategies for variance reduction, best practice is to use a single instantiation of a PRNG and keep going back to it for additional values.
I know that memoization seems to be a perennial topic here on the haskell tag on stack overflow, but I think this question has not been asked before.
I'm aware of several different 'off the shelf' memoization libraries for Haskell:
The memo-combinators and memotrie packages, which make use of a beautiful trick involving lazy infinite data structures to achieve memoization in a purely functional way. (As I understand it, the former is slightly more flexible, while the latter is easier to use in simple cases: see this SO answer for discussion.)
The uglymemo package, which uses unsafePerformIO internally but still presents a referentially transparent interface. The use of unsafePerformIO internally results in better performance than the previous two packages. (Off the shelf, its implementation uses comparison-based search data structures, rather than perhaps-slightly-more-efficient hash functions; but I think that if you find and replace Cmp for Hashable and Data.Map for Data.HashMap and add the appropraite imports, you get a hash based version.)
However, I'm not aware of any library that looks answers up based on object identity rather than object value. This can be important, because sometimes the kinds of object which are being used as keys to your memo table (that is, as input to the function being memoized) can be large---so large that fully examining the object to determine whether you've seen it before is itself a slow operation. Slow, and also unnecessary, if you will be applying the memoized function again and again to an object which is stored at a given 'location in memory' 1. (This might happen, for example, if we're memoizing a function which is being called recursively over some large data structure with a lot of structural sharing.) If we've already computed our memoized function on that exact object before, we can already know the answer, even without looking at the object itself!
Implementing such a memoization library involves several subtle issues and doing it properly requires several special pieces of support from the language. Luckily, GHC provides all the special features that we need, and there is a paper by Peyton-Jones, Marlow and Elliott which basically worries about most of these issues for you, explaining how to build a solid implementation. They don't provide all details, but they get close.
The one detail which I can see which one probably ought to worry about, but which they don't worry about, is thread safety---their code is apparently not threadsafe at all.
My question is: does anyone know of a packaged library which does the kind of memoization discussed in the Peyton-Jones, Marlow and Elliott paper, filling in all the details (and preferably filling in proper thread-safety as well)?
Failing that, I guess I will have to code it up myself: does anyone have any ideas of other subtleties (beyond thread safety and the ones discussed in the paper) which the implementer of such a library would do well to bear in mind?
UPDATE
Following #luqui's suggestion below, here's a little more data on the exact problem I face. Let's suppose there's a type:
data Node = Node [Node] [Annotation]
This type can be used to represent a simple kind of rooted DAG in memory, where Nodes are DAG Nodes, the root is just a distinguished Node, and each node is annotated with some Annotations whose internal structure, I think, need not concern us (but if it matters, just ask and I'll be more specific.) If used in this way, note that there may well be significant structural sharing between Nodes in memory---there may be exponentially more paths which lead from the root to a node than there are nodes themselves. I am given a data structure of this form, from an external library with which I must interface; I cannot change the data type.
I have a function
myTransform : Node -> Node
the details of which need not concern us (or at least I think so; but again I can be more specific if needed). It maps nodes to nodes, examining the annotations of the node it is given, and the annotations its immediate children, to come up with a new Node with the same children but possibly different annotations. I wish to write a function
recursiveTransform : Node -> Node
whose output 'looks the same' as the data structure as you would get by doing:
recursiveTransform Node originalChildren annotations =
myTransform Node recursivelyTransformedChildren annotations
where
recursivelyTransformedChildren = map recursiveTransform originalChildren
except that it uses structural sharing in the obvious way so that it doesn't return an exponential data structure, but rather one on the order of the same size as its input.
I appreciate that this would all be easier if say, the Nodes were numbered before I got them, or I could otherwise change the definition of a Node. I can't (easily) do either of these things.
I am also interested in the general question of the existence of a library implementing the functionality I mention quite independently of the particular concrete problem I face right now: I feel like I've had to work around this kind of issue on a few occasions, and it would be nice to slay the dragon once and for all. The fact that SPJ et al felt that it was worth adding not one but three features to GHC to support the existence of libraries of this form suggests that the feature is genuinely useful and can't be worked around in all cases. (BUT I'd still also be very interested in hearing about workarounds which will help in this particular case too: the long term problem is not as urgent as the problem I face right now :-) )
1 Technically, I don't quite mean location in memory, since the garbage collector sometimes moves objects around a bit---what I really mean is 'object identity'. But we can think of this as being roughly the same as our intuitive idea of location in memory.
If you only want to memoize based on object identity, and not equality, you can just use the existing laziness mechanisms built into the language.
For example, if you have a data structure like this
data Foo = Foo { ... }
expensive :: Foo -> Bar
then you can just add the value to be memoized as an extra field and let the laziness take care of the rest for you.
data Foo = Foo { ..., memo :: Bar }
To make it easier to use, add a smart constructor to tie the knot.
makeFoo ... = let foo = Foo { ..., memo = expensive foo } in foo
Though this is somewhat less elegant than using a library, and requires modification of the data type to really be useful, it's a very simple technique and all thread-safety issues are already taken care of for you.
It seems that stable-memo would be just what you needed (although I'm not sure if it can handle multiple threads):
Whereas most memo combinators memoize based on equality, stable-memo does it based on whether the exact same argument has been passed to the function before (that is, is the same argument in memory).
stable-memo only evaluates keys to WHNF.
This can be more suitable for recursive functions over graphs with cycles.
stable-memo doesn't retain the keys it has seen so far, which allows them to be garbage collected if they will no longer be used. Finalizers are put in place to remove the corresponding entries from the memo table if this happens.
Data.StableMemo.Weak provides an alternative set of combinators that also avoid retaining the results of the function, only reusing results if they have not yet been garbage collected.
There is no type class constraint on the function's argument.
stable-memo will not work for arguments which happen to have the same value but are not the same heap object. This rules out many candidates for memoization, such as the most common example, the naive Fibonacci implementation whose domain is machine Ints; it can still be made to work for some domains, though, such as the lazy naturals.
Ekmett just uploaded a library that handles this and more (produced at HacPhi): http://hackage.haskell.org/package/intern. He assures me that it is thread safe.
Edit: Actually, strictly speaking I realize this does something rather different. But I think you can use it for your purposes. It's really more of a stringtable-atom type interning library that works over arbitrary data structures (including recursive ones). It uses WeakPtrs internally to maintain the table. However, it uses Ints to index the values to avoid structural equality checks, which means packing them into the data type, when what you want are apparently actually StableNames. So I realize this answers a related question, but requires modifying your data type, which you want to avoid...
In C++ and other languages, add-on libraries implement a multi-index container, e.g. Boost.Multiindex. That is, a collection that stores one type of value but maintains multiple different indices over those values. These indices provide for different access methods and sorting behaviors, e.g. map, multimap, set, multiset, array, etc. Run-time complexity of the multi-index container is generally the sum of the individual indices' complexities.
Is there an equivalent for Haskell or do people compose their own? Specifically, what is the most idiomatic way to implement a collection of type T with both a set-type of index (T is an instance of Ord) as well as a map-type of index (assume that a key value of type K could be provided for each T, either explicitly or via a function T -> K)?
I just uploaded IxSet to hackage this morning,
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/ixset
ixset provides sets which have multiple indexes.
ixset has been around for a long time as happstack-ixset. This version removes the dependencies on anything happstack specific, and is the new official version of IxSet.
Another option would be kdtree:
darcs get http://darcs.monoid.at/kdtree
kdtree aims to improve on IxSet by offering greater type-safety and better time and space usage. The current version seems to do well on all three of those aspects -- but it is not yet ready for prime time. Additional contributors would be highly welcomed.
In the trivial case where every element has a unique key that's always available, you can just use a Map and extract the key to look up an element. In the slightly less trivial case where each value merely has a key available, a simple solution it would be something like Map K (Set T). Looking up an element directly would then involve first extracting the key, indexing the Map to find the set of elements that share that key, then looking up the one you want.
For the most part, if something can be done straightforwardly in the above fashion (simple transformation and nesting), it probably makes sense to do it that way. However, none of this generalizes well to, e.g., multiple independent keys or keys that may not be available, for obvious reasons.
Beyond that, I'm not aware of any widely-used standard implementations. Some examples do exist, for example IxSet from happstack seems to roughly fit the bill. I suspect one-size-kinda-fits-most solutions here are liable to have a poor benefit/complexity ratio, so people tend to just roll their own to suit specific needs.
Intuitively, this seems like a problem that might work better not as a single implementation, but rather a collection of primitives that could be composed more flexibly than Data.Map allows, to create ad-hoc specialized structures. But that's not really helpful for short-term needs.
For this specific question, you can use a Bimap. In general, though, I'm not aware of any common class for multimaps or multiply-indexed containers.
I believe that the simplest way to do this is simply with Data.Map. Although it is designed to use single indices, when you insert the same element multiple times, most compilers (certainly GHC) will make the values place to the same place. A separate implementation of a multimap wouldn't be that efficient, as you want to find elements based on their index, so you cannot naively associate each element with multiple indices - say [([key], value)] - as this would be very inefficient.
However, I have not looked at the Boost implementations of Multimaps to see, definitively, if there is an optimized way of doing so.
Have I got the problem straight? Both T and K have an order. There is a function key :: T -> K but it is not order-preserving. It is desired to manage a collection of Ts, indexed (for rapid access) both by the T order and the K order. More generally, one might want a collection of T elements indexed by a bunch of orders key1 :: T -> K1, .. keyn :: T -> Kn, and it so happens that here key1 = id. Is that the picture?
I think I agree with gereeter's suggestion that the basis for a solution is just to maintiain in sync a bunch of (Map K1 T, .. Map Kn T). Inserting a key-value pair in a map duplicates neither the key nor the value, allocating only the extra heap required to make a new entry in the right place in the index. Inserting the same value, suitably keyed, in multiple indices should not break sharing (even if one of the keys is the value). It is worth wrapping the structure in an API which ensures that any subsequent modifications to the value are computed once and shared, rather than recomputed for each entry in an index.
Bottom line: it should be possible to maintain multiple maps, ensuring that the values are shared, even though the key-orders are separate.
I have twice recently refactored code in order to change the order of parameters because there was too much code where hacks like flip or \x -> foo bar x 42 were happening.
When designing a function signature what principles will help me to make the best use of currying?
For languages that support currying and partial-application easily, there is one compelling series of arguments, originally from Chris Okasaki:
Put the data structure as the last argument
Why? You can then compose operations on the data nicely. E.g. insert 1 $ insert 2 $ insert 3 $ s. This also helps for functions on state.
Standard libraries such as "containers" follow this convention.
Alternate arguments are sometimes given to put the data structure first, so it can be closed over, yielding functions on a static structure (e.g. lookup) that are a bit more concise. However, the broad consensus seems to be that this is less of a win, especially since it pushes you towards heavily parenthesized code.
Put the most varying argument last
For recursive functions, it is common to put the argument that varies the most (e.g. an accumulator) as the last argument, while the argument that varies the least (e.g. a function argument) at the start. This composes well with the data structure last style.
A summary of the Okasaki view is given in his Edison library (again, another data structure library):
Partial application: arguments more likely to be static usually appear before other arguments in order to facilitate partial application.
Collection appears last: in all cases where an operation queries a single collection or modifies an existing collection, the collection argument will appear last. This is something of a de facto standard for Haskell datastructure libraries and lends a degree of consistency to the API.
Most usual order: where an operation represents a well-known mathematical function on more than one datastructure, the arguments are chosen to match the most usual argument order for the function.
Place the arguments that you are most likely to reuse first. Function arguments are a great example of this. You are much more likely to want to map f over two different lists, than you are to want to map many different functions over the same list.
I tend to do what you did, pick some order that seems good and then refactor if it turns out that another order is better. The order depends a lot on how you are going to use the function (naturally).