Is there any functionality in IDL that will allow it to evaluate a a string as code?
Or, failing that, is there a nice, dynamic way of including /KEYWORD in functions? For example, if I wanted to ask them for what type of map projection the user wants, is there a way to do it nicely, without large if/case statements for the /Projection_Type keyword it needs?
With even a small number of user options, the combinations would cause if/case statements to get out of hand very quickly to handle all the possible options.
The best bet is to use a case statement because you can't trust that your user is going to type in the same string for Projection_Type that you're expecting as in the keyword.
Though if you are set on doing something like this, there is the EXECUTE function that treats a string as an IDL statement:
Result = EXECUTE(String [, QuietCompile] [, QuietExecution])
Edited to add, there's also CALL_FUNCTION and CALL_PROCEDURE that are faster but maybe less flexible. Look them all up in the IDL help and see what works for you.
Related
I have different commands my program is reading in (i.e., print, count, min, max, etc.). These words can also include a number at the end of them (i.e., print3, count1, min2, max6, etc.). I'm trying to figure out a way to extract the command and the number so that I can use both in my code.
I'm struggling to figure out a way to find the last element in the string in order to extract it, in Smalltalk.
You didn't told which incarnation of Smalltalk you use, so I will explain what I would do in Pharo, that is the one I'm familiar with.
As someone that is playing with Pharo a few months at most, I can tell you the sheer amount of classes and methods available can feel overpowering at first, but the environment actually makes easy to find things. For example, when you know the exact input and output you want, but doesn't know if a method already exists somewhere, or its name, the Finder actually allow you to search by giving a example. You can open it in the world menu, as shown bellow:
By default it seeks selectors (method names) matching your input terms:
But this default is not what we need right now, so you must change the option in the upper right box to "Examples", and type in the search field a example of the input, followed by the output you want, both separated by a ".". The input example I used was the string 'max6', followed by the desired result, the number 6. Pharo then gives me a list of methods that match that:
To get what would return us the text part, you can make a new search, changing the example output from number 6 to the string 'max':
Fortunately there is several built-in methods matching the description of your problem.
There are more elegant ways, I suppose, but you can make use of the fact that String>>#asNumber only parses the part it can recognize. So you can do
'print31' reversed asNumber asString reversed asNumber
to give you 31. That only works if there actually is a number at the end.
This is one of those cases where we can presume the input data has a specific form, ie, the only numbers appear at the end of the string, and you want all those numbers. In that case it's not too hard to do, really, just:
numText := 'Kalahari78' select: [ :each | each isDigit ].
num := numText asInteger. "78"
To get the rest of the string without the digits, you can just use this:
'Kalahari78' withoutTrailingDigits. "Kalahari"6
As some of the Pharo "OGs" pointed out, you can take a look at the String class (just type CMD-Return, type in String, hit Return) and you will find an amazing number of methods for all kinds of things. Usually you can get some ideas from those. But then there are times when you really just need an answer!
I have step where I am have String Array, something like this:
Then Drop-dow patient_breed contains ['Breed1', 'Breed2',.... Breed20']
I need to split this text on two lines. I know that in Gherkin there is expression """. I try something like this:
Then Drop-dow patient_breed contains ['Breed1',
"""
'Breed2',.... Breed20']
"""
It didn't help. Is there any solution?
What do you gain by putting this string in your scenario. IMO all you are doing is making the scenario harder to read!
What do you lose by putting this string in your scenario?
Well first of all you now have to have at least two things the determine the exact contents of the string, the thing in the application that creates it and the hardcoded string in your scenario. So you are repeating yourself.
In addition you've increased the cost of change. Lets say we want our strings to change from 'Breedx' to 'Breed: x'. Now you have to change every scenario that looks at the drop down. This will take much much longer than changing the code.
So what can you do instead?
Change your scenario step so that it becomes Then I should see the patient breeds and delegate the HOW of the presentation of the breeds and even the sort of control that the breeds are presented in to something that is outside of Cucumber e.g. a helper method called by a step definition, or perhaps even something in your codebase.
Try with a datatable approach. You will have to add a DataTable argument in the stepdefinition.
Then Drop-dow patient_breed contains
'Breed1'
'Breed2'
...
...
...
'Breed20']
For a multiline approach try the below. In this you will have to add a String argument to the stepdefinition.
Then Drop-dow patient_breed contains
"""
['Breed1','Breed2',.... Breed20']
"""
I would read the entire string and then split it using Java after it has been passed into the step. In order to keep my step as a one or two liner, I would use a helper method that I implemented myself.
I would like to change the behavior of menhir's output in follwoing way:
I want it to look up all grammatical alternatives if it finds any, and put them in a list and get me back this ambigouus interpretation. It shall not reduce conflicts, just store them.
In the source code of menhir, it seems to me, that I have to look in "Engine.ml". The resultant syntactically determined token comes in a variant type item "Accepted v" as a state of a checkpoint of the grammatical automaton. This content is found by a function "accept env prod" before, that is part of a bundle of recursive functions, that change the states.
Do you have a tip, how I could change these functions to put all the possible results in the list here and proceed as if nothing happened? Or do you think, that this wont work anyway?
Thanks.
What you are looking for is a GLR parser generator (G is for generalized). Menhir is not such tool, and I doubt you could modify it easily to do what you want.
However, there is another tool that does exactly what you want: dypgen.
Consider the following sample codes:
1.Sample
var IsAdminUser = (User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges)
? 'yes'
: 'no';
console.log(IsAdminUser);
2.Sample
var IsAdminUser = (User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges)?'yes': 'no';
console.log(IsAdminUser);
The 2nd sample I am very comfortable with & I code in that style, but it was told that its wrong way of doing without any supportive reasons.
Why is it recommended not to use a single line ternary operator in Node.js?
Can anyone put some light on the reason why it is so?
Advance Thanks for great help.
With all coding standards, they are generally for readability and maintainability. My guess is the author finds it more readable on separate lines. The compiler / interpreter for your language will handle it all the same. As long as you / your project have a set standard and stick to it, you'll be fine. I recommend that the standards be worked on or at least reviewed by everyone on the project before casting them in stone. I think that if you're breaking it up on separate lines like that, you may as well define an if/else conditional block and use that.
Be wary of coding standards rules that do not have a justification.
Personally, I do not like the ternary operator as it feels unnatural to me and I always have to read the line a few times to understand what it's doing. I find separate if/else blocks easier for me to read. Personal preference of course.
It is in fact wrong to put the ? on a new line; even though it doesn’t hurt in practice.
The reason is a JS feature called “Automatic Semicolon Insertion”. When a var statement ends with a newline (without a trailing comma, which would indicate that more declarations are to follow), your JS interpreter should automatically insert a semicolon.
This semicolon would have the effect that IsAdminUser is assigned a boolean value (namely the result of User.Privileges == AdminPrivileges). After that, a new (invalid) expression would start with the question mark of what you think is a ternary operator.
As mentioned, most JS interpreters are smart enough to recognize that you have a newline where you shouldn’t have one, and implicitely fix your ternary operator. And, when minifying your script, the newline is removed anyway.
So, no problem in practice, but you’re relying on an implicit fix of common JS engines. It’s better to write the ternary operator like this:
var foo = bar ? "yes" : "no";
Or, for larger expressions:
var foo = bar ?
"The operation was successful" : "The operation has failed.";
Or even:
var foo = bar ?
"Congratulations, the operation was a total success!" :
"Oh, no! The operation has horribly failed!";
I completely disagree with the person who made this recommendation. The ternary operator is a standard feature of all 'C' style languages (C,C++,Java,C#,Javascript etc.), and most developers who code in these languages are completely comfortable with the single line version.
The first version just looks weird to me. If I was maintaining code and saw this, I would correct it back to a single line.
If you want verbose, use if-else. If you want neat and compact use a ternary.
My guess is the person who made this recommendation simply wasn't very familiar with the operator, so found it confusing.
Because it's easier on the eye and easier to read. It's much easier to see what your first snippet is doing at a glance - I don't even have to read to the end of a line. I can simply look at one spot and immediately know what values IsAdminUser will have for what conditions. Much the same reason as why you wouldn't write an entire if/else block on one line.
Remember that these are style conventions and are not necessarily backed up by objective (or technical) reasoning.
The reason for having ? and : on separate lines is so that it's easier to figure out what changed if your source control has a line-by-line comparison.
If you've just changed the stuff between the ? and : and everything is on a single line, the entire line can be marked as changed (based on your comparison tool).
Does any one know how to generate the possible misspelling ?
Example : unemployment
- uemployment
- onemploymnet
-- etc.
If you just want to generate a list of possible misspellings, you might try a tool like this one. Otherwise, in SAS you might be able to use a function like COMPGED to compute a measure of the similarity between the string someone entered, and the one you wanted them to type. If the two are "close enough" by your standard, replace their text with the one you wanted.
Here is an example that computes the Generalized Edit Distance between "unemployment" and a variety of plausible mispellings.
data misspell;
input misspell $16.;
length misspell string $16.;
retain string "unemployment";
GED=compged(misspell, string,'iL');
datalines;
nemployment
uemployment
unmployment
uneployment
unemloyment
unempoyment
unemplyment
unemploment
unemployent
unemploymnt
unemploymet
unemploymen
unemploymenyt
unemploymenty
unemploymenht
unemploymenth
unemploymengt
unemploymentg
unemploymenft
unemploymentf
blahblah
;
proc print data=misspell label;
label GED='Generalized Edit Distance';
var misspell string GED;
run;
Essentially you are trying to develop a list of text strings based on some rule of thumb, such as one letter is missing from the word, that a letter is misplaced into the wrong spot, that one letter was mistyped, etc. The problem is that these rules have to be explicitly defined before you can write the code, in SAS or any other language (this is what Chris was referring to). If your requirement is reduced to this one-wrong-letter scenario then this might be managable; otherwise, the commenters are correct and you can easily create massive lists of incorrect spellings (after all, all combinations except "unemployment" constitute a misspelling of that word).
Having said that, there are many ways in SAS to accomplish this text manipulation (rx functions, some combination of other text-string functions, macros); however, there are probably better ways to accomplish this. I would suggest an external Perl process to generate a text file that can be read into SAS, but other programmers might have better alternatives.
If you are looking for a general spell checker, SAS does have proc spell.
It will take some tweaking to get it working for your situation; it's very old and clunky. It doesn't work well in this case, but you may have better results if you try and use another dictionary? A Google search will show other examples.
filename name temp lrecl=256;
options caps;
data _null_;
file name;
informat name $256.;
input name &;
put name;
cards;
uemployment
onemploymnet
;
proc spell in=name
dictionary=SASHELP.BASE.NAMES
suggest;
run;
options nocaps;