I was wondering. Are there languages that use only pass-by-reference as their eval strategy?
I don't know what an "eval strategy" is, but Perl subroutine calls are pass-by-reference only.
sub change {
$_[0] = 10;
}
$x = 5;
change($x);
print $x; # prints "10"
change(0); # raises "Modification of a read-only value attempted" error
VB (pre .net), VBA & VBS default to ByRef although it can be overriden when calling/defining the sub or function.
FORTRAN does; well, preceding such concepts as pass-by-reference, one should probably say that it uses pass-by-address; a FORTRAN function like:
INTEGER FUNCTION MULTIPLY_TWO_INTS(A, B)
INTEGER A, B
MULTIPLY_BY_TWO_INTS = A * B
RETURN
will have a C-style prototype of:
extern int MULTIPLY_TWO_INTS(int *A, int *B);
and you could call it via something like:
int result, a = 1, b = 100;
result = MULTIPLY_TWO_INTS(&a, &b);
Another example are languages that do not know function arguments as such but use stacks. An example would be Forth and its derivatives, where a function can change the variable space (stack) in whichever way it wants, modifying existing elements as well as adding/removing elements. "prototype comments" in Forth usually look something like
(argument list -- return value list)
and that means the function takes/processes a certain, not necessarily constant, number of arguments and returns, again, not necessarily a constant, number of elements. I.e. you can have a function that takes a number N as argument and returns N elements - preallocating an array, if you so like.
How about Brainfuck?
Related
Why do I see
proc simple(a, b: int) : int =
result = a + b
so often in nim code when it seems as if
proc simple(a, b: int) : int =
a + b
would suffice? Is there any semantic difference between those two that I'm missing?
The only reference to implicitly returning the last statement I found on nim-lang wasn't in the manual but in the tut where it states that
[...] a proc's body can consist of a single expression whose value is
then returned implicitly.
Which seems misleading: it seems as it works for every 'last expression' (unless result was already set, then the result of the statement has to be discarded)
In the coding conventions (https://nim-lang.org/docs/nep1.html#introduction-coding-conventions) they recommend to use return only if it's needed in the flow.
The book Nim in Action says 'it's not idiomatic to use the return keyword as the last statement of the proc', but it's not explicit about result = a + b vs a + b. From the snippets around the book, the convention seems to be:
Prefer a + b.
Use result = a + b only if you are modifying result, as in result.add(b).
Use return a only to do an early exit from the proc.
The book also list this gotcha that won't compile:
proc resultVar: string =
result = "The result"
"This cause an error"
The reason behind code like result = a + b or return a is that people can't get all the idiomatics, specially when they are beginners like me. I still see for i in range(len(variable)) in Python code, which is not only non-pythonic but ugly and underperformant.
One of the more exotic features is the implicit result variable: every procedure in Nim with a non-void return type has an implicit result variable that represents the value that will be returned [Wikipedia].
I am writing the following simple routine:
program scratch
character*4 :: word
word = 'hell'
print *, concat(word)
end program scratch
function concat(x)
character*(*) x
concat = x // 'plus stuff'
end function concat
The program should be taking the string 'hell' and concatenating to it the string 'plus stuff'. I would like the function to be able to take in any length string (I am planning to use the word 'heaven' as well) and concatenate to it the string 'plus stuff'.
Currently, when I run this on Visual Studio 2012 I get the following error:
Error 1 error #6303: The assignment operation or the binary
expression operation is invalid for the data types of the two
operands. D:\aboufira\Desktop\TEMP\Visual
Studio\test\logicalfunction\scratch.f90 9
This error is for the following line:
concat = x // 'plus stuff'
It is not apparent to me why the two operands are not compatible. I have set them both to be strings. Why will they not concatenate?
High Performance Mark's comment tells you about why the compiler complains: implicit typing.
The result of the function concat is implicitly typed because you haven't declared its type otherwise. Although x // 'plus stuff' is the correct way to concatenate character variables, you're attempting to assign that new character object to a (implictly) real function result.
Which leads to the question: "just how do I declare the function result to be a character?". Answer: much as you would any other character variable:
character(len=length) concat
[note that I use character(len=...) rather than character*.... I'll come on to exactly why later, but I'll also point out that the form character*4 is obsolete according to current Fortran, and may eventually be deleted entirely.]
The tricky part is: what is the length it should be declared as?
When declaring the length of a character function result which we don't know ahead of time there are two1 approaches:
an automatic character object;
a deferred length character object.
In the case of this function, we know that the length of the result is 10 longer than the input. We can declare
character(len=LEN(x)+10) concat
To do this we cannot use the form character*(LEN(x)+10).
In a more general case, deferred length:
character(len=:), allocatable :: concat ! Deferred length, will be defined on allocation
where later
concat = x//'plus stuff' ! Using automatic allocation on intrinsic assignment
Using these forms adds the requirement that the function concat has an explicit interface in the main program. You'll find much about that in other questions and resources. Providing an explicit interface will also remove the problem that, in the main program, concat also implicitly has a real result.
To stress:
program
implicit none
character(len=[something]) concat
print *, concat('hell')
end program
will not work for concat having result of the "length unknown at compile time" forms. Ideally the function will be an internal one, or one accessed from a module.
1 There is a third: assumed length function result. Anyone who wants to know about this could read this separate question. Everyone else should pretend this doesn't exist. Just like the writers of the Fortran standard.
I'm trying to crate a function in Fortran (95) that that will have as input a string (test) and a character (class). The function will compare each character of test with the character class and return a logical that is .true. if they are of the same class1 and .false. otherwise.
The function (and the program to run it) is defined below:
!====== WRAPPER MODULE ======!
module that_has_function
implicit none
public
contains
!====== THE ACTUAL FUNCTION ======!
function isa(test ,class )
implicit none
logical, allocatable, dimension(:) :: isa
character*(*) :: test
character :: class
integer :: lt
character(len=:), allocatable :: both
integer, allocatable, dimension(:) :: intcls
integer :: i
lt = len_trim(test)
allocate(isa(lt))
allocate(intcls(lt+1))
allocate(character(len=lt+1) :: both)
isa = .false.
both = class//trim(test)
do i = 1,lt+1
select case (both(i:i))
case ('A':'Z'); intcls(i) = 1! uppercase alphabetic
case ('a':'a'); intcls(i) = 2! lowercase alphabetic
case ('0':'9'); intcls(i) = 3! numeral
case default; intcls(i) = 99! checks if they are equal
end select
end do
isa = intcls(1).eq.intcls(2:)
return
end function isa
end module that_has_function
!====== CALLER PROGRAM ======!
program that_uses_module
use that_has_function
implicit none
integer :: i
i = 65
! Reducing the result of "isa" to a scalar with "all" works:
! V-V
do while (all(isa(achar(i),'A')))
print*, achar(i)
i = i + 1
end do
! Without the reduction it doesn''t:
!do while (isa(achar(i),'A'))
! print*, achar(i)
! i = i + 1
!end do
end program that_uses_module
I would like to use this function in do while loops, for example, as it is showed in the code above.
The problem is that, for example, when I use two scalars (rank 0) as input the function still returns the result as an array (rank 1), so to make it work as the condition of a do while loop I have to reduce the result to a scalar with all, for example.
My question is: can I make the function conditionally return a scalar? If not, then is it possible to make the function work with vector and scalar inputs and return, respectively, vector and scalar outputs?
1. What I call class here is, for example, uppercase or lowercase letters, or numbers, etc. ↩
You can not make the function conditionally return a scalar or a vector.
But you guessed right, there is a solution. You will use a generic function.
You write 2 functions, one that takes scalar and return scalar isas, the 2nd one takes vector and return vector isav.
From outside of the module you will be able to call them with the same name: isa. You only need to write its interface at the beginning of the module:
module that_has_function
implicit none
public
interface isa
module procedure isas, isav
end interface isa
contains
...
When isa is called, the compiler will know which one to use thanks to the type of the arguments.
The rank of a function result cannot be conditional on the flow of execution. This includes selection by evaluating an expression.
If reduction of a scalar result is too much, then you'll probably be horrified to see what can be done instead. I think, for instance, of derived types and defined operations.
However, I'd consider it bad design in general for the function reference to be unclear in its rank. My answer, then, is: no you can't, but that's fine because you don't really want to.
Regarding the example of minval, a few things.1 As noted in the comment, minval may take a dim argument. So
integer :: X(5,4) = ...
print *, MINVAL(X) ! Result a scalar
print *, MINVAL(X,dim=1) ! Result a rank-1 array
is in keeping with the desire of the question.
However, the rank of the function result is still "known" at the time of referencing the function. Simply having a dim argument means that the result is an array of rank one less than the input array rather than a scalar. The rank of the result doesn't depend on the value of the dim argument.
As noted in the other answer, you can have similar functionality with a generic interface. Again, the resolved specific function (whichever is chosen) will have a result of known rank at the time of reference.
1 The comment was actually about minloc but minval seems more fitting to the topic.
Could you please explain differences between and definition of call by value, call by reference, call by name and call by need?
Call by value
Call-by-value evaluation is the most common evaluation strategy, used in languages as different as C and Scheme. In call-by-value, the argument expression is evaluated, and the resulting value is bound to the corresponding variable in the function (frequently by copying the value into a new memory region). If the function or procedure is able to assign values to its parameters, only its local copy is assigned — that is, anything passed into a function call is unchanged in the caller's scope when the function returns.
Call by reference
In call-by-reference evaluation (also referred to as pass-by-reference), a function receives an implicit reference to a variable used as argument, rather than a copy of its value. This typically means that the function can modify (i.e. assign to) the variable used as argument—something that will be seen by its caller. Call-by-reference can therefore be used to provide an additional channel of communication between the called function and the calling function. A call-by-reference language makes it more difficult for a programmer to track the effects of a function call, and may introduce subtle bugs.
differences
call by value example
If data is passed by value, the data is copied from the variable used in for example main() to a variable used by the function. So if the data passed (that is stored in the function variable) is modified inside the function, the value is only changed in the variable used inside the function. Let’s take a look at a call by value example:
#include <stdio.h>
void call_by_value(int x) {
printf("Inside call_by_value x = %d before adding 10.\n", x);
x += 10;
printf("Inside call_by_value x = %d after adding 10.\n", x);
}
int main() {
int a=10;
printf("a = %d before function call_by_value.\n", a);
call_by_value(a);
printf("a = %d after function call_by_value.\n", a);
return 0;
}
The output of this call by value code example will look like this:
a = 10 before function call_by_value.
Inside call_by_value x = 10 before adding 10.
Inside call_by_value x = 20 after adding 10.
a = 10 after function call_by_value.
call by reference example
If data is passed by reference, a pointer to the data is copied instead of the actual variable as is done in a call by value. Because a pointer is copied, if the value at that pointers address is changed in the function, the value is also changed in main(). Let’s take a look at a code example:
#include <stdio.h>
void call_by_reference(int *y) {
printf("Inside call_by_reference y = %d before adding 10.\n", *y);
(*y) += 10;
printf("Inside call_by_reference y = %d after adding 10.\n", *y);
}
int main() {
int b=10;
printf("b = %d before function call_by_reference.\n", b);
call_by_reference(&b);
printf("b = %d after function call_by_reference.\n", b);
return 0;
}
The output of this call by reference source code example will look like this:
b = 10 before function call_by_reference.
Inside call_by_reference y = 10 before adding 10.
Inside call_by_reference y = 20 after adding 10.
b = 20 after function call_by_reference.
when to use which
One advantage of the call by reference method is that it is using pointers, so there is no doubling of the memory used by the variables (as with the copy of the call by value method). This is of course great, lowering the memory footprint is always a good thing. So why don’t we just make all the parameters call by reference?
There are two reasons why this is not a good idea and that you (the programmer) need to choose between call by value and call by reference. The reason are: side effects and privacy. Unwanted side effects are usually caused by inadvertently changes that are made to a call by reference parameter. Also in most cases you want the data to be private and that someone calling a function only be able to change if you want it. So it is better to use a call by value by default and only use call by reference if data changes are expected.
call by name
In call-by-name evaluation, the arguments to a function are not evaluated before the function is called — rather, they are substituted directly into the function body (using capture-avoiding substitution) and then left to be evaluated whenever they appear in the function.
call by need
Lazy evaluation, or call-by-need is an evaluation strategy which delays the evaluation of an expression until its value is needed (non-strict evaluation) and which also avoids repeated evaluations
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.