Related
Why is it fmt::format_to(OutputIt, ...) and not fmt::print(OutputIt, ...)??
I'm currently familiarizing myself with {fmt}, a / the modern C++ formatting library.
While browsing the API, I found the naming a bit disjoint, but given my little-to-no experience with the library (and my interest in API design), I would like to get behind these naming choices: (fmt core API reference)
There's fmt::format(...) -> std::string which makes sense, it returns a formatted string.
Then we have void fmt::print([stream, ] ...) which also makes sense naming wise (certainly given the printf legacy).
But then we have fmt::format_to(OutputIt, ...) -> OutputIt which resembles, apart from the return type, what print does with streams.
Now obviously, one can bike shed names all day, but here the question is not on why we have format vs. print (which is quite explainable to me), but why a function that clearly(?) behaves like the write-to-stream-kind has been bundled with the format_... naming style.
So, as the question title already asks, is there a technical difference in how fmt::print(stream, ...) behaves when formatting to a streams vs. how fmt::format_to(OutputIt, ...) behaves when formatting to an output iterator?
Or was/is this purely a style choice? Also, given that the GitHube repo explicitly lists the fmt tag here, I was hoping that we could get a authoritative answer on this from the original API authors.
While it would be possible to name format_to print, the former is closer conceptually to format than to print. format_to is a generalization of format that writes output via an output iterator instead of std::string. Therefore the naming reflects that.
print without a stream argument on the other hand writes to stdout and print with an argument generalizes that to an arbitrary stream. Writing to a stream is fundamentally different from writing to an output iterator because it involves additional buffering, synchronization, etc. Other languages normally use "print" for this sort of functionality so this convention is followed in {fmt}.
This becomes blurry because you can have an output iterator that writes to a stream but even there the current naming reflects what high-level APIs are being used.
In other words format_to is basically a fancy STL algorithm (there is even format_to_n similarly to copy/copy_n) while print is a formatted output function.
This question has been covered somewhat in previous SO questions. However, previous discussions seem somewhat incomplete.
Fortran has several I/O statements. There is READ(*,*) and WRITE(*,*), etc. The first asterisk (*) is the standard asterisk designating an input or output from the keyboard to/from the screen. My question is about the second asterisk:
The second asterisk designates the format of the I/O elements, the data TYPE which is being used. If this asterisk is left unchanged, the fortran complier uses the default format (whatever that may be, based on the compiler). Users must use a number of format descriptors to designate the data type, precision, and so forth.
(1) Are these format descriptors universal for all Fortran compilers and for all versions of Fortran?
(2) Where can I find the standard list of these format descriptors? For example, F8.3 means that the number should be printed using fixed point notation with field width 8 and 3 decimal places.
EDIT: A reference for edit descriptors can be found here: http://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/Edit+descriptors
First, as a clarification, the 1st asterisk in the READ/WRITE statement has a slightly different meaning than you state. For write, it means write to the default file unit (in linux world generally standard out), for read it means read from the default file unit (in linux world generally standard in), either of which may not necessarily be connected to a terminal screen or a keyboard.
The 2nd asterisk means use list directed IO. For read statements this is generally useful because you don't need a specified format for your input. It breaks up the line into fields separated by space or comma (maybe a couple others that aren't commonly used), and reads each field in turn into the variable associated with that field in the argument list, ignoring unread fields, and continuing onto the next line if not enough fields were read in (unless a line termination character \ is explicitly included).
For writes, it means the compiler is allowed to determine what format to write the variables out (I believe with no separator). I believe it is allowed to do this at run time, so that you are all but guaranteed that the value it is trying to write will fit into the format specifier used, so you can be assured that you won't get ******* written out. The down side is you have to manually include a separator character in your argument list, or all your numbers will run together.
In general, using list directed read is more of a convenience to the user, so they don't have to fit their inputs into rigidly defined fields, and list directed writes are a convenience to the programmer, in case they're not sure what the output will look like.
When you have a data transfer statement like read(*,*) ... it's helpful to understand exactly what this means. read(*,*) is equivalent to the more verbose read(unit=*, fmt=*). This second asterisk, as you have it, makes this read statement (or corresponding write statement) list-directed.
List-directed input/output, as described elsewhere, is a convenience for the programmer. The Fortran standards specify lots of constraints that the compiler must follow, but this language has things like "reasonable values", so allowing output to vary by compiler, settings, and so on.
Again, as described elsewhere, fine user control over the output (or input) comes with giving a format specification. Instead of read(*,fmt=*), something like read(*,fmt=1014) or read(*,fmt=format_variable_or_literal). I take it your question is: what is this format specification?
I won't go into details of all of the possible edit descriptors, but I will say in response to (2): you can find the list of those edit descriptors in the Fortran standard (Clause 10 of Fortran 2008 goes into all the detail) or a good reference book.
To answer (1): no, edit descriptors are not universal. Even across Fortran standards. Of note are:
The introduction of I0 (and other minimal-width specifiers) for output in Fortran 95;
The removal of the H edit descriptor in Fortran 95;
The introduction of the DT edit descriptor in Fortran 2003.
This question has been covered somewhat in previous SO questions. However, previous discussions seem somewhat incomplete.
Fortran has several I/O statements. There is READ(*,*) and WRITE(*,*), etc. The first asterisk (*) is the standard asterisk designating an input or output from the keyboard to/from the screen. My question is about the second asterisk:
The second asterisk designates the format of the I/O elements, the data TYPE which is being used. If this asterisk is left unchanged, the fortran complier uses the default format (whatever that may be, based on the compiler). Users must use a number of format descriptors to designate the data type, precision, and so forth.
(1) Are these format descriptors universal for all Fortran compilers and for all versions of Fortran?
(2) Where can I find the standard list of these format descriptors? For example, F8.3 means that the number should be printed using fixed point notation with field width 8 and 3 decimal places.
EDIT: A reference for edit descriptors can be found here: http://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/Edit+descriptors
First, as a clarification, the 1st asterisk in the READ/WRITE statement has a slightly different meaning than you state. For write, it means write to the default file unit (in linux world generally standard out), for read it means read from the default file unit (in linux world generally standard in), either of which may not necessarily be connected to a terminal screen or a keyboard.
The 2nd asterisk means use list directed IO. For read statements this is generally useful because you don't need a specified format for your input. It breaks up the line into fields separated by space or comma (maybe a couple others that aren't commonly used), and reads each field in turn into the variable associated with that field in the argument list, ignoring unread fields, and continuing onto the next line if not enough fields were read in (unless a line termination character \ is explicitly included).
For writes, it means the compiler is allowed to determine what format to write the variables out (I believe with no separator). I believe it is allowed to do this at run time, so that you are all but guaranteed that the value it is trying to write will fit into the format specifier used, so you can be assured that you won't get ******* written out. The down side is you have to manually include a separator character in your argument list, or all your numbers will run together.
In general, using list directed read is more of a convenience to the user, so they don't have to fit their inputs into rigidly defined fields, and list directed writes are a convenience to the programmer, in case they're not sure what the output will look like.
When you have a data transfer statement like read(*,*) ... it's helpful to understand exactly what this means. read(*,*) is equivalent to the more verbose read(unit=*, fmt=*). This second asterisk, as you have it, makes this read statement (or corresponding write statement) list-directed.
List-directed input/output, as described elsewhere, is a convenience for the programmer. The Fortran standards specify lots of constraints that the compiler must follow, but this language has things like "reasonable values", so allowing output to vary by compiler, settings, and so on.
Again, as described elsewhere, fine user control over the output (or input) comes with giving a format specification. Instead of read(*,fmt=*), something like read(*,fmt=1014) or read(*,fmt=format_variable_or_literal). I take it your question is: what is this format specification?
I won't go into details of all of the possible edit descriptors, but I will say in response to (2): you can find the list of those edit descriptors in the Fortran standard (Clause 10 of Fortran 2008 goes into all the detail) or a good reference book.
To answer (1): no, edit descriptors are not universal. Even across Fortran standards. Of note are:
The introduction of I0 (and other minimal-width specifiers) for output in Fortran 95;
The removal of the H edit descriptor in Fortran 95;
The introduction of the DT edit descriptor in Fortran 2003.
I just read about the FastFormat C++ i/o formatting library, and it seems too good to be true: Faster even than printf, typesafe, and with what I consider a pleasing interface:
// prints: "This formats the remaining arguments based on their order - in this case we put 1 before zero, followed by 1 again"
fastformat::fmt(std::cout, "This formats the remaining arguments based on their order - in this case we put {1} before {0}, followed by {1} again", "zero", 1);
// prints: "This writes each argument in the order, so first zero followed by 1"
fastformat::write(std::cout, "This writes each argument in the order, so first ", "zero", " followed by ", 1);
This looks almost too good to be true. Is there a catch? Have you had good, bad or indifferent experiences with it?
Is there a 'catch' with FastFormat?
Last time I checked, there was one annoying catch:
You can only use either the narrow string version or the wide string version of this library. (The functions for wchar_t and char are the same -- which type is used is a compile time switch.)
With iostreams, stdio or Boost.Format you can use both.
Found one "catch", though for most people it will never manifest. From the project page:
Atomic operation. It doesn't write out statement elements one at a time, like the IOStreams, so has no atomicity issues
The only way I can see this happening is if it buffers the whole write() call's output itself, then writes it out to the ostream in one step. This means it needs to allocate memory, and if an object passed into the write() call produces a lot of output (several megabytes or more), it can consume up to twice that much memory in internal buffers (assuming it uses the grow-a-buffer-by-doubling-its-size-each-time trick).
If you're just using it for logging, and not, say, dumping huge amounts of XML, you'll never see this problem.
The only other "catch" I'm seeing is:
Highly portable. It will work with all good modern C++ compilers; it even works with Visual C++ 6!
So it won't work with an old C++ compiler, like cfront, whereas iostreams is backward compatible to the late 80's. Again, I'd be surprised if anyone ever had a problem with this.
Although FastFormat is a good library there are a number of issues with it:
Limited formatting support, in particular the following features are not supported:
Leading zeros (or any other non-space padding)
Octal/hexadecimal encoding
Runtime width/alignment specification
The library is quite big for a relatively small task of formatting and has even bigger dependency (STLSoft).
It looks pretty interesting indeed! Good tip regardless, and +1 for that!
I've been playing with it for a bit. The main drawback I see is that FastFormat supports less formatting options for the output. This is I think a direct consequence of the way the higher typesafety is achieved, and a good tradeoff depending on your circumstances.
If you look in detail at his performance benchmark page, you'll notice that good old C printf-family functions are still winning on Linux. In fact, the only test case where they perform poorly is the test case that should be static string concatenations, where I would expect printf to be wasteful. Moreover, GCC provides static type-checking on printf-style function calls, so the benefit of type-safety is reduced. So: if you are running on Linux and if you need the absolute best performance, FastFormat is probably not the optimal solution.
The library depends on a couple of environment variables, as mentioned in the docs.
That might be no biggie to some people, but I'd prefer my code to be as self-contained as possible. If I check it out from source control, it should work and compile. It won't, if it requires you to set environment variables.
I was working with a new C++ developer a while back when he asked the question: "Why can't variable names start with numbers?"
I couldn't come up with an answer except that some numbers can have text in them (123456L, 123456U) and that wouldn't be possible if the compilers were thinking everything with some amount of alpha characters was a variable name.
Was that the right answer? Are there any more reasons?
string 2BeOrNot2Be = "that is the question"; // Why won't this compile?
Because then a string of digits would be a valid identifier as well as a valid number.
int 17 = 497;
int 42 = 6 * 9;
String 1111 = "Totally text";
Well think about this:
int 2d = 42;
double a = 2d;
What is a? 2.0? or 42?
Hint, if you don't get it, d after a number means the number before it is a double literal
It's a convention now, but it started out as a technical requirement.
In the old days, parsers of languages such as FORTRAN or BASIC did not require the uses of spaces. So, basically, the following are identical:
10 V1=100
20 PRINT V1
and
10V1=100
20PRINTV1
Now suppose that numeral prefixes were allowed. How would you interpret this?
101V=100
as
10 1V = 100
or as
101 V = 100
or as
1 01V = 100
So, this was made illegal.
Because backtracking is avoided in lexical analysis while compiling. A variable like:
Apple;
the compiler will know it's a identifier right away when it meets letter 'A'.
However a variable like:
123apple;
compiler won't be able to decide if it's a number or identifier until it hits 'a', and it needs backtracking as a result.
Compilers/parsers/lexical analyzers was a long, long time ago for me, but I think I remember there being difficulty in unambiguosly determining whether a numeric character in the compilation unit represented a literal or an identifier.
Languages where space is insignificant (like ALGOL and the original FORTRAN if I remember correctly) could not accept numbers to begin identifiers for that reason.
This goes way back - before special notations to denote storage or numeric base.
I agree it would be handy to allow identifiers to begin with a digit. One or two people have mentioned that you can get around this restriction by prepending an underscore to your identifier, but that's really ugly.
I think part of the problem comes from number literals such as 0xdeadbeef, which make it hard to come up with easy to remember rules for identifiers that can start with a digit. One way to do it might be to allow anything matching [A-Za-z_]+ that is NOT a keyword or number literal. The problem is that it would lead to weird things like 0xdeadpork being allowed, but not 0xdeadbeef. Ultimately, I think we should be fair to all meats :P.
When I was first learning C, I remember feeling the rules for variable names were arbitrary and restrictive. Worst of all, they were hard to remember, so I gave up trying to learn them. I just did what felt right, and it worked pretty well. Now that I've learned alot more, it doesn't seem so bad, and I finally got around to learning it right.
It's likely a decision that came for a few reasons, when you're parsing the token you only have to look at the first character to determine if it's an identifier or literal and then send it to the correct function for processing. So that's a performance optimization.
The other option would be to check if it's not a literal and leave the domain of identifiers to be the universe minus the literals. But to do this you would have to examine every character of every token to know how to classify it.
There is also the stylistic implications identifiers are supposed to be mnemonics so words are much easier to remember than numbers. When a lot of the original languages were being written setting the styles for the next few decades they weren't thinking about substituting "2" for "to".
Variable names cannot start with a digit, because it can cause some problems like below:
int a = 2;
int 2 = 5;
int c = 2 * a;
what is the value of c? is 4, or is 10!
another example:
float 5 = 25;
float b = 5.5;
is first 5 a number, or is an object (. operator)
There is a similar problem with second 5.
Maybe, there are some other reasons. So, we shouldn't use any digit in the beginnig of a variable name.
The restriction is arbitrary. Various Lisps permit symbol names to begin with numerals.
COBOL allows variables to begin with a digit.
Use of a digit to begin a variable name makes error checking during compilation or interpertation a lot more complicated.
Allowing use of variable names that began like a number would probably cause huge problems for the language designers. During source code parsing, whenever a compiler/interpreter encountered a token beginning with a digit where a variable name was expected, it would have to search through a huge, complicated set of rules to determine whether the token was really a variable, or an error. The added complexity added to the language parser may not justify this feature.
As far back as I can remember (about 40 years), I don't think that I have ever used a language that allowed use of a digit to begin variable names. I'm sure that this was done at least once. Maybe, someone here has actually seen this somewhere.
As several people have noticed, there is a lot of historical baggage about valid formats for variable names. And language designers are always influenced by what they know when they create new languages.
That said, pretty much all of the time a language doesn't allow variable names to begin with numbers is because those are the rules of the language design. Often it is because such a simple rule makes the parsing and lexing of the language vastly easier. Not all language designers know this is the real reason, though. Modern lexing tools help, because if you tried to define it as permissible, they will give you parsing conflicts.
OTOH, if your language has a uniquely identifiable character to herald variable names, it is possible to set it up for them to begin with a number. Similar rule variations can also be used to allow spaces in variable names. But the resulting language is likely to not to resemble any popular conventional language very much, if at all.
For an example of a fairly simple HTML templating language that does permit variables to begin with numbers and have embedded spaces, look at Qompose.
Because if you allowed keyword and identifier to begin with numberic characters, the lexer (part of the compiler) couldn't readily differentiate between the start of a numeric literal and a keyword without getting a whole lot more complicated (and slower).
C++ can't have it because the language designers made it a rule. If you were to create your own language, you could certainly allow it, but you would probably run into the same problems they did and decide not to allow it. Examples of variable names that would cause problems:
0x, 2d, 5555
One of the key problems about relaxing syntactic conventions is that it introduces cognitive dissonance into the coding process. How you think about your code could be deeply influenced by the lack of clarity this would introduce.
Wasn't it Dykstra who said that the "most important aspect of any tool is its effect on its user"?
The compiler has 7 phase as follows:
Lexical analysis
Syntax Analysis
Semantic Analysis
Intermediate Code Generation
Code Optimization
Code Generation
Symbol Table
Backtracking is avoided in the lexical analysis phase while compiling the piece of code. The variable like Apple, the compiler will know its an identifier right away when it meets letter ‘A’ character in the lexical Analysis phase. However, a variable like 123apple, the compiler won’t be able to decide if its a number or identifier until it hits ‘a’ and it needs backtracking to go in the lexical analysis phase to identify that it is a variable. But it is not supported in the compiler.
When you’re parsing the token you only have to look at the first character to determine if it’s an identifier or literal and then send it to the correct function for processing. So that’s a performance optimization.
Probably because it makes it easier for the human to tell whether it's a number or an identifier, and because of tradition. Having identifiers that could begin with a digit wouldn't complicate the lexical scans all that much.
Not all languages have forbidden identifiers beginning with a digit. In Forth, they could be numbers, and small integers were normally defined as Forth words (essentially identifiers), since it was faster to read "2" as a routine to push a 2 onto the stack than to recognize "2" as a number whose value was 2. (In processing input from the programmer or the disk block, the Forth system would split up the input according to spaces. It would try to look the token up in the dictionary to see if it was a defined word, and if not would attempt to translate it into a number, and if not would flag an error.)
Suppose you did allow symbol names to begin with numbers. Now suppose you want to name a variable 12345foobar. How would you differentiate this from 12345? It's actually not terribly difficult to do with a regular expression. The problem is actually one of performance. I can't really explain why this is in great detail, but it essentially boils down to the fact that differentiating 12345foobar from 12345 requires backtracking. This makes the regular expression non-deterministic.
There's a much better explanation of this here.
it is easy for a compiler to identify a variable using ASCII on memory location rather than number .
I think the simple answer is that it can, the restriction is language based. In C++ and many others it can't because the language doesn't support it. It's not built into the rules to allow that.
The question is akin to asking why can't the King move four spaces at a time in Chess? It's because in Chess that is an illegal move. Can it in another game sure. It just depends on the rules being played by.
Originally it was simply because it is easier to remember (you can give it more meaning) variable names as strings rather than numbers although numbers can be included within the string to enhance the meaning of the string or allow the use of the same variable name but have it designated as having a separate, but close meaning or context. For example loop1, loop2 etc would always let you know that you were in a loop and/or loop 2 was a loop within loop1.
Which would you prefer (has more meaning) as a variable: address or 1121298? Which is easier to remember?
However, if the language uses something to denote that it not just text or numbers (such as the $ in $address) it really shouldn't make a difference as that would tell the compiler that what follows is to be treated as a variable (in this case).
In any case it comes down to what the language designers want to use as the rules for their language.
The variable may be considered as a value also during compile time by the compiler
so the value may call the value again and again recursively
Backtracking is avoided in lexical analysis phase while compiling the piece of code. The variable like Apple; , the compiler will know its a identifier right away when it meets letter ‘A’ character in the lexical Analysis phase. However, a variable like 123apple; , compiler won’t be able to decide if its a number or identifier until it hits ‘a’ and it needs backtracking to go in the lexical analysis phase to identify that it is a variable. But it is not supported in compiler.
Reference
There could be nothing wrong with it when comes into declaring variable.but there is some ambiguity when it tries to use that variable somewhere else like this :
let 1 = "Hello world!"
print(1)
print(1)
print is a generic method that accepts all types of variable. so in that situation compiler does not know which (1) the programmer refers to : the 1 of integer value or the 1 that store a string value.
maybe better for compiler in this situation to allows to define something like that but when trying to use this ambiguous stuff, bring an error with correction capability to how gonna fix that error and clear this ambiguity.