What I am trying to do is a little addon which would let me know how much time I have spent casting during combat in %,
function()
local spell, _, _, _, _, endTime = UnitCastingInfo("player")
-- getting information from the game itself whether im "Casting"
local inCombat = UnitAffectingCombat("player")
-- getting information form the game if combat is true (1) or not (nil)
local casting = {}
local sum = 0
if inCombat == 1 then
if spell then
table.insert(casting, 1)
else
table.insert(casting, 0)
end
else
for k in pairs (casting) do
casting [k] = nil
end
end
for i=1, #casting, 1 do
sum = sum + casting[i]
end
return( sum / #casting ) end
-- creating a list which adds 1 every frame I am casting and I am in combat,
-- or adds 0 every frame I'm not casting and I'm not in combat.
-- Then I sum all the numbers and divide it by the number of inputs to figure
-- out how much % I have spent "casting".
-- In case the combat condition is false, delete the list
For some reason these numbers don't add up at all, I only see "1" when both conditions are satisfied, or 0 if the combat condition is satisfied.
There might be some better approach I'm sure, but I am kind of new to lua and programming in general.
You say you're new to Lua, so I will attempt to explain in detail what is wrong and how it can be improved, so brace yourself for a long read.
I assume that your function will be called every frame/step/tick/whateveryouwanttocallit of your game. Since you set sum = 0 and casting = {} at the beginning of the function, this will be done every time the function is called. That's why you always get 0 or 1 in the end.
Upvalues to the rescue!
Lua has this nice thing called lexical scoping. I won't go into much detail, but the basic idea is: If a variable is accessible (in scope) when a function is defined, that function remembers that variable, no matter where it is called. For example:
local foo
do
local var = 10
foo = function() return var end
end
print(bar) -- nil
print(foo()) -- 10
You can also assign a new value to the variable and the next time you call the function, it will still have that new value. For example, here's a simple counter function:
local counter
do
count = 0
counter = function() count = count + 1; return count; end
end
print(counter()) -- 1
print(counter()) -- 2
-- etc.
Applying that to your situation, what are the values that need to persist from one call to the next?
Number of ticks spent in combat
Number of ticks spent casting
Define those two values outside of your function, and increment / read / reset them as needed; it will persist between repeated calls to your function.
Things to keep in mind:
You need to reset those counters when the player is no longer casting and/or in combat, or they will just continue where they left off.
casting doesn't need to be a table. Tables are slow compared to integers, even if you reuse them. If you need to count stuff, a number is more than enough. Just make casting = 0 when not in combat and increase it by 1 when in combat.
Thank you for feedback everyone, in the end after your suggestions and some research my code looks like this and works great:
function()
local spell, _, _, _, startTime, endTime, _, _, _ = UnitCastingInfo("player")
local inCombat = UnitAffectingCombat("player")
local inLockdown = InCombatLockdown()
local _, duration, _, _ = GetSpellCooldown("Fireball")
casting = casting or {}
local sum = 0
if inCombat == 1 or inLockdown == 1 then
if spell or duration ~= 0 then
casting[#casting+1] = 1
elseif spell == nil or duration == 0 then
casting[#casting+1] = 0
end
else
local next = next
local k = next(casting)
while k ~= nil do
casting[k] = nil
k = next(casting, k)
end
end
for i=1, #casting, 1 do
sum = sum + casting[i]
end
return(("%.1f"):format( (sum / #casting)*100 ).. "%%") end
what i noticed is there was a problem with reseting the table in the original code:
for k in pairs (casting) do
casting [k] = nil
it seemed like either some zeros stayed there, or the table size didnt "shrink" i dont know.
Maybe intereger would be faster then a table, but honestly i dont see any performance issues even when the table gets ridicolously big (5 min, 60 fps, thats 18k inputs) also for the sake of learning a new language its better to do it harder way in my opinion
Regards
Related
I'm currently converting a ThinkScript indicator to python, however, I've run into this piece of code and I'm kinda confused on how it works:
input rollingPeriodMinutes = 60;
def factor = (SecondsFromTime(Market_Open_Time) / (60 * rollingPeriodMinutes) / 100);
def rolloverTime = if factor == Round(factor) then 1 else 0;
rec H1 = compoundValue(1, if !rolloverTime then if high > H1[1] then high else H1[1] else high, high);
rec H = compoundValue(1, if rolloverTime then H1[1] else H[1], high);
I can't really understand what is stored at the end in the variable "H". Can you help me understand?
Any help is really appraciated!! Thanks
input rollingPeriodMinutes = 60;
declares (defines) and sets a variable, rollingPeriodMinutes, to a default value of 60. The input declaration indicates that the user will be able to alter this value in the thinkorswim settings for this script.
def factor = (SecondsFromTime(Market_Open_Time) / (60 * rollingPeriodMinutes) / 100);
declares and sets a variable, factor to a calculated value. This uses the rollingPeriodMinutes value, above, as well as the SecondsFromTime function and a Market_Open_Time variable that must have been set elsewhere in the script.
def rolloverTime = if factor == Round(factor) then 1 else 0;
declares and sets a variable, rolloverTime to a boolean based on the if statement. This uses the factor variable above (1 is true and 0 is false in thinkscript).
rec H1 = compoundValue(1, if !rolloverTime then if high > H1[1] then high else H1[1] else high, high);
rec H = compoundValue(1, if rolloverTime then H1[1] else H[1], high);
rec is actually the same as def and has been obsoleted. Previously, it specifically declared a recursive variable; now one would just use def regardless. See the notes below for more information.
CompoundValue is an easy statement in thinkscript, but complicated to understand from the Learning Center reference.
In short, the declarations for H and H1 are saying 'going back 1 bar: if no data is present, then use the if statement to determine a value; else if data is present, then use the high value.
Broken out, the algorithm for H1 (where high is a reserved word for the high price for a given bar) could look like:
let numBarsBack = 1
if (data is present for the bar at numBarsBack) then
if (!rolloverTime == true) then
if high > (H1 value one bar previous) then H1 = high
else H1 = (H1 value one bar previous)
else H1 = high // thinkscript sometimes requires a "default" in `if` statements, even if there's no 3rd possible value
else (if rolloverTime == true) then H1 = high
else (if data is not present for the bar at numBarsBack) then H1 = high
*** See my complete description of how CompoundValue works in thinkscript at the SO question "Understanding & Converting ThinkScripts CompoundValue Function".***
Notes:
SecondsFromTime, according to the current thinkscript Learning Center reference looks like:
SecondsFromTime ( int fromTime);
Description
Returns the number of seconds from the specified time (24-hour clock notation) in the EST timezone. Note that this function always returns zero when chart's aggregation period is greater than or equal to 1 day.
Input parameters
Parameter Default value Description
fromTime - Defines time from which seconds are counted, in the HHMM format, 24-hour clock notation.
The Learning Center reference for rec says this:
rec
Notice: this is an article about an obsolete thinkScript® notation. Although rec variables are still supported by thinkScript®, they can be completely replaced by def.
Syntax
rec
Description
Enables you to reference a historical value of a variable that you are calculating in the study or strategy itself. Rec is short for "recursion".
Example
rec C = C[1] + volume;
plot CumulativeVolume = C;
This example plots the cumulative volume starting from the beginning of the time period.
and, finally:
Remember that thinkscript code is executed for every bar in a selected period. Ie, if you're looking at 10 days with a daily period, there will be a bar for each of the 10 days; and the script will run a loop, repeating the code for each of those 10 bars. As a result, the variables will have appropriate values for each bar.
Although the OP is wanting to convert a script to Python, if someone comes here interested in how thinkscript works, there are tricks to keep a value constant for an entire script (though this section of code does not include examples for that). For information on how to do this in thinkscript, see my answer to SO question "thinkscript - How to create a variable that retains its value".
I am very new to SML and functional programming.
I have searched the site but was unable to find an answer to my question.
I am trying to write a basic range function with a start, stop, and step parameter.
For example, range(2, 12, 3) should return the list [2,5,8,11].
I don't get any errors, but when I try running range(2,12,3); the cursor advances to the next line and nothing happens, I can't even type anything into the smlnj app.
Here is my code:
fun range(start, stop, step) =
if start = stop then nil
else start::range(start+step, stop, step);
Which outputs this:
val range = fn : int * int * int -> int list
What changes do I need to make to my code so that when I run range(2,12,3) I get [2,5,8,11] ?
Thank you
Your condition (start = stop) to break the recursion is wrong. In your example you'll perform recursive calls with start=2, start=5, start=8, start=11, start=14, ... leading to an infinite loop. It's not that nothing happens, it's just that smnlj keeps computing...
You have an infinite recursion whenever stop - start is not a multiple of the step size (or zero).
Look at range(11,12,3), which should generate your last number:
if 11 = 12 then nil
else 11::range(11+3, 12, 3)
This will calculate range(14,12,3):
if 14 = 12 then nil
else 14::range(14+3, 12, 3)
and then range(17,12,3), and so on, ad infinitum.
You need to replace = with either > or >=, depending on whether stop should be included or not.
I've been experimenting with various prime sieves in Julia with a view to finding the fastest. This is my simplest, if not my fastest, and it runs in around 5-6 ms on my 1.80 GHz processor for n = 1 million. However, when I add a simple 'if' statement to take care of the cases where n <= 1 or s (the start number) > n, the run-time increases by a factor of 15 to around 80-90 ms.
using BenchmarkTools
function get_primes_1(n::Int64, s::Int64=2)::Vector{Int64}
#=if n <= 1 || s > n
return []
end=#
sieve = fill(true, n)
for i = 3:2:isqrt(n) + 1
if sieve[i]
for j = i ^ 2:i:n
sieve[j]= false
end
end
end
pl = [i for i in s - s % 2 + 1:2:n if sieve[i]]
return s == 2 ? unshift!(pl, 2) : pl
end
#btime get_primes_1(1_000_000)
Output with the 'if' statement commented out, as above, is:
5.752 ms (25 allocations: 2.95 MiB)
Output with the 'if' statement included is:
86.496 ms (2121646 allocations: 35.55 MiB)
I'm probably embarrassingly ignorant or being terminally stupid, but if someone could point out what I'm doing wrong it would be very much appreciated.
The problem of this function is with Julia compiler having problems with type inference when closures appear in your function. In this case the closure is a comprehension and the problem is that if statement makes sieve to be only conditionally defined.
You can see this by moving sieve up:
function get_primes_1(n::Int64, s::Int64=2)::Vector{Int64}
sieve = fill(true, n)
if n <= 1 || s > n
return Int[]
end
for i = 3:2:isqrt(n) + 1
if sieve[i]
for j = i ^ 2:i:n
sieve[j]= false
end
end
end
pl = [i for i in s - s % 2 + 1:2:n if sieve[i]]
return s == 2 ? unshift!(pl, 2) : pl
end
However, this makes sieve to be created also when n<1 which you want to avoid I guess :).
You can solve this problem by wrapping sieve in let block like this:
function get_primes_1(n::Int64, s::Int64=2)::Vector{Int64}
if n <= 1 || s > n
return Int[]
end
sieve = fill(true, n)
for i = 3:2:isqrt(n) + 1
if sieve[i]
for j = i ^ 2:i:n
sieve[j]= false
end
end
end
let sieve = sieve
pl = [i for i in s - s % 2 + 1:2:n if sieve[i]]
return s == 2 ? unshift!(pl, 2) : pl
end
end
or avoiding an inner closure for example like this:
function get_primes_1(n::Int64, s::Int64=2)::Vector{Int64}
if n <= 1 || s > n
return Int[]
end
sieve = fill(true, n)
for i = 3:2:isqrt(n) + 1
if sieve[i]
for j = i ^ 2:i:n
sieve[j]= false
end
end
end
pl = Int[]
for i in s - s %2 +1:2:n
sieve[i] && push!(pl, i)
end
s == 2 ? unshift!(pl, 2) : pl
end
Now you might ask how can you detect such problems and make sure that some solution solves them? The answer is to use #code_warntype on a function. In your original function you will notice that sieve is Core.Box which is an indication of the problem.
See https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/15276 for details. In general this is in my perception the most important issue with performance of Julia code which is easy to miss. Hopefully in the future the compiler will be smarter with this.
Edit: My suggestion actually doesn't seem to help. I missed your output annotation, so the return type appears to be correctly inferred after all. I am stumped, for the moment.
Original answer:
The problem isn't that there is an if statement, but that you introduce a type instability inside that if statement. You can read about type instabilities in the performance section of the Julia manual here.
An empty array defined like this: [], has a different type than a vector of integers:
> typeof([1,2,3])
Array{Int64,1}
> typeof([])
Array{Any,1}
The compiler cannot predict what the output type of the function will be, and therefore produces defensive, slow code.
Try to change
return []
to
return Int[]
I'm trying to generate a random integral and assign it to the variable.
import random
import time
Op = lambda: random.randint(1300, 19000)
op = "https://duckduckgo.com/html?q="
variable = int(Op())
grow = 0
while x < 3:
print(Op())
grow = grow + 1
time.sleep(1)
In here everything works fine, function "print" prints different result every time with 3 attempts.
However when I want to format this code like this:
Op = lambda: random.randint(1300, 19000)
op = "https://duckduckgo.com/html?q="
Op1 = int(Op())
pop = str("{}{}").format(op, Op1)
grow = 0
while grow < 3:
print(pop)
grow = grow + 1
time.sleep(1)
Then the function print gives me the same number three times.
For example:
>>>https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=44543
>>>https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=44543
>>>https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=44543
And I would like to get three random numbers. For example:
>>>https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=44325
>>>https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=57323
>>>https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=35691
I was trying to use %s - %d formatting but the result is the same.
Because you never changes the value of 'pop'.
In you first example you are creating instance of Op in every iteration but in second example you created instance once outside the loop and print the same value.
Try this:
Op = lambda: random.randint(1300, 19000)
op = "https://duckduckgo.com/html?q="
grow = 0
while grow < 3:
pop = str("{}{}").format(op, int(Op()))
print(pop)
grow = grow + 1
time.sleep(1)
Lambda functions are by definition anonymous. If you need to "remember" a lambda's procedure, just use def statement. But actually you don't even need this:
import random
import time
url_base = "https://duckduckgo.com/html?q={}"
grow = 0
while grow < 3:
print(url_base.format(random.randint(1300, 19000))
grow = grow + 1
time.sleep(1)
Your main problem is that you are trying to assign fixed values to variables and expect them to behave like procedures.
You need to apply randomness at every iteration. Instead you calculate a random number once and plug it in to every loop.
I'm very new to OCaml / functional programming, and I'm confused about the implementation of some things that are relatively simple other languages I know. I could use any and all help.
Chiefly: in a program I'm working on, I either increment or decrement a variable based on a certain parameter. Here's something representative of what I have:
let tot = ref 0 in
for i = 0 to s do
if test_num > 0 then
tot := !tot + other_num
else
tot := !tot - other_num
done;;
This is obviously not the way to go about it, because even if the else statement is never taken, the code acts as if it is, each and every time, presumably because it's closer to the bottom of the program? I know OCaml has pretty sophisticated pattern matching, but within this level of coed I need access to a handful of lists I've already created, and, as far as I understand, I can't access those lists from a top-level function without passing them all as parameters.
I know I'm going about this the wrong way, but I have no idea how to do this idiomatically.
Suggestions? Thanks.
edit
Here's a more concise example:
let ex_list = [1; -2; 3; -4] in
let max_mem = ref 0 in
let mem = ref 0 in
let () =
for i = 0 to 3 do
let transition = List.nth ex_list i in
if transition > 0 then (
mem := (!mem + 10);
) else
mem := (!mem - 1);
if (!mem > !max_mem) then (max_mem := !mem);
done;
print_int !max_mem; print_string "\n";
in !mem;
At the end, when I print max_mem, I get 19, though this value should be (0 + 10 - 1 + 10 - 1 = 18). Am I doing the math wrong, or does the problem come from somewhere else?
Your code looks fine to me. It doesn't make a lot of sense as actual code, but I think you're just trying to show a general layout. It's also written in imperative style, which I usually try to avoid if possible.
The if in OCaml acts just like it does in other languages, there's no special thing about being near the bottom of the program. (More precisely, it acts like the ? : ternary operator from C and related languages; i.e., it's an expression.)
Your code doesn't return a useful value; it always returns () (the quintessentially uninteresting value known as "unit").
If we replace your free variables (ones not defined in this bit of code) by constants, and change the code to return a value, we can run it:
# let s = 8 in
let other_num = 7 in
let test_num = 3 in
let tot = ref 0 in
let () =
for i = 0 to s do
if test_num > 0 then
tot := !tot + other_num
else
tot := !tot - other_num
done
in
!tot;;
- : int = 63
#
If you're trying to learn to write in a functional style (i.e., without mutable variables), you would write this loop as a recursive function and make tot a parameter:
# let s = 8 in
let other_num = 7 in
let test_num = 3 in
let rec loop n tot =
if n > s then
tot
else
let tot' =
if test_num > 0 then tot + other_num else tot - other_num
in
loop (n + 1) tot'
in
loop 0 0;;
- : int = 63
It would probably be easier to help if you gave a (edited to add: small :-) self-contained problem that you're trying to solve.
The other parts of your question aren't clear enough to give any advice on. One thing that I might point out is that it's completely idiomatic to use pattern matching when processing lists.
Also, there's nothing wrong with passing things as parameters. That's why the language is called "functional" -- your code consists of functions, which have parameters.
Update
I like to write let () = expr1 in expr2 instead of expr1; expr2. It's just a habit I got into, sorry if it's confusing. The essence is that you're evaluating the first expression just for its side effects (it has type unit), and then returning the value of the second expression.
If you don't have something after the for, the code will evaluate to (), as I said. Since the purpose of the code seems to be to compute the value of !tot, this is what I returned. At the very least, this lets you see the calculated value in the OCaml top level.
tot' is just another variable. If you calculate a new value straightforwardly from a variable named var, it's conventional to name the new value var'. It reads as "var prime".
Update 2
Your example code works OK, but it has the problem that it uses List.nth to traverse a list, which is a slow (quadratic) operation. In fact your code is naturally considered a fold. Here's how you might write it in a functional style:
# let ex_list = [1; -2; 3; -4] in
let process (tot, maxtot) transition =
let tot' = if transition > 0 then tot + 10 else tot - 1 in
(tot', max maxtot tot')
in
List.fold_left process (0, 0) ex_list;;
- : int * int = (18, 19)
#
In addition to Jeffrey's answer, let me second that this is not how you would usually write such code in Ocaml, since it is a very low-level imperative approach. A more functional version would look like this:
let high ex_list =
let deltas = List.map (fun x -> if x > 0 then 10 else -1) ex_list in
snd (List.fold_left (fun (n, hi) d -> (n+d, max (n+d) hi)) (0, 0) deltas)
let test = high [1; -2; 3; -4]