Related
I need to evaluate a dynamic logical expression and I know that in ABAP it is not possible.
I found the class cl_java_script and with this class I could achieve my requeriment. I've try something like this:
result = cl_java_script=>create( )->evaluate( `( 1 + 2 + 3 ) == 6 ;` ).
After the method evaluate execution result = true as espected. But my happiness is over when I look into the class documentation that says This class is obsolete.
My question is, there is another way to achieve this?
Using any turing complete language to parse a "dynamic logical expression" is a terrible idea, as an attacker might be able to run any program inside your expression, i.e. while(true) { } will crash your variant using cl_java_script. Also although I don't know the details of cl_java_script, I assume it launches a separate JS runtime in a separate thread somewhere, this does not seem to be the most efficient choice to calculate such a small dynamic expression.
Instead you could implement your own small parser. This has the advantage that you can limit what it supports to the bare minimum whilst being able to extend it to everything you need in your usecase. Here's a small example using reverse polish notation which is able to correctly evaluate the expression you've shown (using RPN simplifies parsing a lot, though for sure one can also build a full fledged expression parser):
REPORT z_expr_parser.
TYPES:
BEGIN OF multi_value,
integer TYPE REF TO i,
boolean TYPE REF TO bool,
END OF multi_value.
CLASS lcl_rpn_parser DEFINITION.
PUBLIC SECTION.
METHODS:
constructor
IMPORTING
text TYPE string,
parse
RETURNING VALUE(result) TYPE multi_value.
PRIVATE SECTION.
DATA:
tokens TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF string,
stack TYPE STANDARD TABLE OF multi_value.
METHODS pop_int
RETURNING VALUE(result) TYPE i.
METHODS pop_bool
RETURNING VALUE(result) TYPE abap_bool.
ENDCLASS.
CLASS lcl_rpn_parser IMPLEMENTATION.
METHOD constructor.
" a most simple lexer:
SPLIT text AT ' ' INTO TABLE tokens.
ASSERT lines( tokens ) > 0.
ENDMETHOD.
METHOD pop_int.
DATA(peek) = stack[ lines( stack ) ].
ASSERT peek-integer IS BOUND.
result = peek-integer->*.
DELETE stack INDEX lines( stack ).
ENDMETHOD.
METHOD pop_bool.
DATA(peek) = stack[ lines( stack ) ].
ASSERT peek-boolean IS BOUND.
result = peek-boolean->*.
DELETE stack INDEX lines( stack ).
ENDMETHOD.
METHOD parse.
LOOP AT tokens INTO DATA(token).
IF token = '='.
DATA(comparison) = xsdbool( pop_int( ) = pop_int( ) ).
APPEND VALUE #( boolean = NEW #( comparison ) ) TO stack.
ELSEIF token = '+'.
DATA(addition) = pop_int( ) + pop_int( ).
APPEND VALUE #( integer = NEW #( addition ) ) TO stack.
ELSE.
" assumption: token is integer
DATA value TYPE i.
value = token.
APPEND VALUE #( integer = NEW #( value ) ) TO stack.
ENDIF.
ENDLOOP.
ASSERT lines( stack ) = 1.
result = stack[ 1 ].
ENDMETHOD.
ENDCLASS.
START-OF-SELECTION.
" 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 in RPN:
DATA(program) = |1 2 3 + + 6 =|.
DATA(parser) = NEW lcl_rpn_parser( program ).
DATA(result) = parser->parse( ).
ASSERT result-boolean IS BOUND.
ASSERT result-boolean->* = abap_true.
SAPs BRF is an option, but potentially massive overkill in your scenario.
Here is a blog on calling BRF from abap.
And here is how Rules/Expressions can be defined dynamically.
BUT, if you know enough about the source problem to generate
1 + 2 + 3 = 6
Then it is hard to imagine why a simple custom parser cant be used.
Just how complex should the expressions be ?
Id probably write my own parser before investing in calling BRF.
Since some/many BSPs use server side JAVAscript and not ABAP as the scripting language, i cant see SAP removing the Kernel routine anytime soon.
SYSTEM-CALL JAVA SCRIPT EVALUATE.
SO maybe consider Just calling the cl_java_script anyway until it is an issue.
Then worry about a parser if and when it is really no longer a valid call.
But definitely some movement in the obsolete space here.
SAP is pushing/forcing you to cloud with the SDK, to execute such things.
https://sap.github.io/cloud-sdk/docs/js/overview-cloud-sdk-for-javascript
How do I convert the data type if I know the Variant.Type from typeof()?
for example:
var a=5;
var b=6.9;
type_cast(b,typeof(a)); # this makes b an int type value
How do I convert the data type if I know the Variant.Type from typeof()?
You can't. GDScript does not have generics/type templates, so beyond simple type inference, there is no way to specify a type without knowing the type.
Thus, any workaround to cast the value to a type only known at runtime would have to be declared to return Variant, because there is no way to specify the type.
Furthermore, to store the result on a variable, how do you declare the variable if you don't know the type?
Let us have a look at variable declarations. If you do not specify a type, you get a Variant.
For example in this code, a is a Variant that happens to have an int value:
var a = 5
In this other example a is an int:
var a:int = 5
This is also an int:
var a := 5
In this case the variable is typed according to what you are using to initialized, that is the type is inferred.
You may think you can use that like this:
var a = 5
var b := a
Well, no. That is an error. "The variable type can't be inferred". As far as Godot is concerned a does not have a type in this example.
I'm storing data in a json file: { variable:[ typeof(variable), variable_value ] } I added typeof() because for example I store an int but when I reassign it from the file it gets converted to float (one of many other examples)
It is true that JSON is not good at storing Godot types. Which is why many authors do not recommend using JSON to save state.
Now, be aware that we can't get a variable with the right type as explained above. Instead we should try to get a Variant of the right type.
If you cannot change the serialization format, then you are going to need one big match statement. Something like this:
match type:
TYPE_NIL:
return null
TYPE_BOOL:
return bool(value)
TYPE_INT:
return int(value)
TYPE_REAL:
return float(value)
TYPE_STRING:
return str(value)
Those are not all the types that a Variant can hold, but I think it would do for JSON.
Now, if you can change the serialization format, then I will suggest to use str2var and var2str.
For example:
var2str(Vector2(1, 10))
Will return a String value "Vector2( 1, 10 )". And if you do:
str2var("Vector2( 1, 10 )")
You get a Variant with a Vector2 with 1 for the x, and 10 for the y.
This way you can always store Strings, in a human readable format, that Godot can parse. And if you want to do that for whole objects, or you want to put them in a JSON structure, that is up to you.
By the way, you might also be interested in ResourceFormatSaver and ResourceFormatLoader.
How can I pass an integer by reference in Python?
I want to modify the value of a variable that I am passing to the function. I have read that everything in Python is pass by value, but there has to be an easy trick. For example, in Java you could pass the reference types of Integer, Long, etc.
How can I pass an integer into a function by reference?
What are the best practices?
It doesn't quite work that way in Python. Python passes references to objects. Inside your function you have an object -- You're free to mutate that object (if possible). However, integers are immutable. One workaround is to pass the integer in a container which can be mutated:
def change(x):
x[0] = 3
x = [1]
change(x)
print x
This is ugly/clumsy at best, but you're not going to do any better in Python. The reason is because in Python, assignment (=) takes whatever object is the result of the right hand side and binds it to whatever is on the left hand side *(or passes it to the appropriate function).
Understanding this, we can see why there is no way to change the value of an immutable object inside a function -- you can't change any of its attributes because it's immutable, and you can't just assign the "variable" a new value because then you're actually creating a new object (which is distinct from the old one) and giving it the name that the old object had in the local namespace.
Usually the workaround is to simply return the object that you want:
def multiply_by_2(x):
return 2*x
x = 1
x = multiply_by_2(x)
*In the first example case above, 3 actually gets passed to x.__setitem__.
Most cases where you would need to pass by reference are where you need to return more than one value back to the caller. A "best practice" is to use multiple return values, which is much easier to do in Python than in languages like Java.
Here's a simple example:
def RectToPolar(x, y):
r = (x ** 2 + y ** 2) ** 0.5
theta = math.atan2(y, x)
return r, theta # return 2 things at once
r, theta = RectToPolar(3, 4) # assign 2 things at once
Not exactly passing a value directly, but using it as if it was passed.
x = 7
def my_method():
nonlocal x
x += 1
my_method()
print(x) # 8
Caveats:
nonlocal was introduced in python 3
If the enclosing scope is the global one, use global instead of nonlocal.
Maybe it's not pythonic way, but you can do this
import ctypes
def incr(a):
a += 1
x = ctypes.c_int(1) # create c-var
incr(ctypes.ctypes.byref(x)) # passing by ref
Really, the best practice is to step back and ask whether you really need to do this. Why do you want to modify the value of a variable that you're passing in to the function?
If you need to do it for a quick hack, the quickest way is to pass a list holding the integer, and stick a [0] around every use of it, as mgilson's answer demonstrates.
If you need to do it for something more significant, write a class that has an int as an attribute, so you can just set it. Of course this forces you to come up with a good name for the class, and for the attribute—if you can't think of anything, go back and read the sentence again a few times, and then use the list.
More generally, if you're trying to port some Java idiom directly to Python, you're doing it wrong. Even when there is something directly corresponding (as with static/#staticmethod), you still don't want to use it in most Python programs just because you'd use it in Java.
Maybe slightly more self-documenting than the list-of-length-1 trick is the old empty type trick:
def inc_i(v):
v.i += 1
x = type('', (), {})()
x.i = 7
inc_i(x)
print(x.i)
A numpy single-element array is mutable and yet for most purposes, it can be evaluated as if it was a numerical python variable. Therefore, it's a more convenient by-reference number container than a single-element list.
import numpy as np
def triple_var_by_ref(x):
x[0]=x[0]*3
a=np.array([2])
triple_var_by_ref(a)
print(a+1)
output:
7
The correct answer, is to use a class and put the value inside the class, this lets you pass by reference exactly as you desire.
class Thing:
def __init__(self,a):
self.a = a
def dosomething(ref)
ref.a += 1
t = Thing(3)
dosomething(t)
print("T is now",t.a)
In Python, every value is a reference (a pointer to an object), just like non-primitives in Java. Also, like Java, Python only has pass by value. So, semantically, they are pretty much the same.
Since you mention Java in your question, I would like to see how you achieve what you want in Java. If you can show it in Java, I can show you how to do it exactly equivalently in Python.
class PassByReference:
def Change(self, var):
self.a = var
print(self.a)
s=PassByReference()
s.Change(5)
class Obj:
def __init__(self,a):
self.value = a
def sum(self, a):
self.value += a
a = Obj(1)
b = a
a.sum(1)
print(a.value, b.value)// 2 2
In Python, everything is passed by value, but if you want to modify some state, you can change the value of an integer inside a list or object that's passed to a method.
integers are immutable in python and once they are created we cannot change their value by using assignment operator to a variable we are making it to point to some other address not the previous address.
In python a function can return multiple values we can make use of it:
def swap(a,b):
return b,a
a,b=22,55
a,b=swap(a,b)
print(a,b)
To change the reference a variable is pointing to we can wrap immutable data types(int, long, float, complex, str, bytes, truple, frozenset) inside of mutable data types (bytearray, list, set, dict).
#var is an instance of dictionary type
def change(var,key,new_value):
var[key]=new_value
var =dict()
var['a']=33
change(var,'a',2625)
print(var['a'])
If I use the inline function in MATLAB I can create a single function name that could respond differently depending on previous choices:
if (someCondition)
p = inline('a - b','a','b');
else
p = inline('a + b','a','b');
end
c = p(1,2);
d = p(3,4);
But the inline functions I'm creating are becoming quite epic, so I'd like to change them to other types of functions (i.e. m-files, subfunctions, or nested functions).
Let's say I have m-files like Mercator.m, KavrayskiyVII.m, etc. (all taking a value for phi and lambda), and I'd like to assign the chosen function to p in the same way as I have above so that I can call it many times (with variable sized matrices and things that make using eval either impossible or a total mess).
I have a variable, type, that will be one of the names of the functions required (e.g. 'Mercator', 'KavrayskiyVII', etc.). I figure I need to make p into a pointer to the function named inside the type variable. Any ideas how I can do this?
Option #1:
Use the str2func function (assumes the string in type is the same as the name of the function):
p = str2func(type); % Create function handle using function name
c = p(phi, lambda); % Invoke function handle
NOTE: The documentation mentions these limitations:
Function handles created using str2func do not have access to variables outside of their local workspace or to nested functions. If your function handle contains these variables or functions, MATLAB® throws an error when you invoke the handle.
Option #2:
Use a SWITCH statement and function handles:
switch type
case 'Mercator'
p = #Mercator;
case 'KavrayskiyVII'
p = #KavrayskiyVII;
... % Add other cases as needed
end
c = p(phi, lambda); % Invoke function handle
Option #3:
Use EVAL and function handles (suggested by Andrew Janke):
p = eval(['#' type]); % Concatenate string name with '#' and evaluate
c = p(phi, lambda); % Invoke function handle
As Andrew points out, this avoids the limitations of str2func and the extra maintenance associated with a switch statement.
For example, I would write:
x = 2
y = x + 4
print(y)
x = 5
print(y)
And it would output:
6 (=2+4)
9 (=5+4)
Also, are there any cases where this could actually be useful?
Clarification: Yes, lambdas etc. solve this problem (they were how I arrived at this idea); I was wondering if there were specific languages where this was the default: no function or lambda keywords required or needed.
Haskell will meet you halfway, because essentially everything is a function, but variables are only bound once (meaning you cannot reassign x in the same scope).
It's easy to consider y = x + 4 a variable assignment, but when you look at y = map (+4) [1..] (which means add 4 to every number in the infinite list from 1 upwards), what is y now? Is it an infinite list, or is it a function that returns an infinite list? (Hint: it's the second one.) In this case, treating variables as functions can be extremely beneficial, if not an absolute necessity, when taking advantage of laziness.
Really, in Haskell, your definition of y is a function accepting no arguments and returning x+4, where x is also a function that takes no arguments, but returns the value 2.
In any language with first order functions, it's trivial to assign anonymous functions to variables, but for most languages you'll have to add the parentheses to indicate a function call.
Example Lua code:
x = function() return 2 end
y = function() return x() + 4 end
print(y())
x = function() return 5 end
print(y())
$ lua x.lua
6
9
Or the same thing in Python (sticking with first-order functions, but we could have just used plain integers for x):
x = lambda: 2
y = lambda: x() + 4
print(y())
x = lambda: 5
print(y())
$ python x.py
6
9
you can use func expressions in C#
Func<int, int> y = (x) => x + 5;
Console.WriteLine(y(5)); // 10
Console.WriteLine(y(3)); // 8
... or ...
int x = 0;
Func<int> y = () => x + 5;
x = 5;
Console.WriteLine(y()); // 10
x = 3;
Console.WriteLine(y()); // 8
... if you are really wanting to program in a functional style the first option would probably be best.
it looks more like the stuff you saw in math class.
you don't have to worry about external state.
Check out various functional languages like F#, Haskell, and Scala. Scala treats functions as objects that have an apply() method, and you can store them in variables and pass them around like you can any other kind of object. I don't know that you can print out the definition of a Scala function as code though.
Update: I seem to recall that at least some Lisps allow you to pretty-print a function as code (eg, Scheme's pretty-print function).
This is the way spreadsheets work.
It is also related to call by name semantics for evaluating function arguments. Algol 60 had that, but it didn't catch on, too complicated to implement.
The programming language Lucid does this, although it calls x and y "streams" rather than functions.
The program would be written:
y
where
y = x + 4
end
And then you'd input:
x(0): 2
y = 6
x(1): 5
y = 7
Of course, Lucid (like most interesting programming languages) is fairly obscure, so I'm not surprised that nobody else found it. (or looked for it)
Try checking out F# here and on Wikipedia about Functional programming languages.
I myself have not yet worked on these types of languages since I've been concentrated on OOP, but will be delving soon once F# is out.
Hope this helps!
The closest I've seen of these have been part of Technical Analysis systems in charting components. (Tradestation, metastock, etc), but mainly they focus on returning multiple sets of metadata (eg buy/sell signals) which can be then fed into other functions that accept either meta data, or financial data, or plotted directly.
My 2c:
I'd say a language as you suggest would be highly confusing to say the least. Functions are generally r-values for good reason. This code (javascript) shows how enforcing functions as r-values increases readability (and therefore maintenance) n-fold:
var x = 2;
var y = function() { return x+2; }
alert(y());
x= 5;
alert(y());
Self makes no distinction between fields and methods, both are slots and can be accessed in exactly the same way. A slot can contain a value or a function (so those two are still separate entities), but the distinction doesn't matter to the user of the slot.
In Scala, you have lazy values and call-by-name arguments in functions.
def foo(x : => Int) {
println(x)
println(x) // x is evaluated again!
}
In some way, this can have the effect you looked for.
I believe the mathematically oriented languages like Octave, R and Maxima do that. I could be wrong, but no one else has mentioned them, so I thought I would.