I'm creating a diagram modeling tool that connects Items to Tasks. Items have Properties (simple name/value relationships) and Tasks have Formulas. I intend to produce a UI for the users to write in a QLineEdit a formula using C++ syntax ( ie, (property1 * property2)/property3), and then output the result. Of course, the formula would have to be somehow parsed and computed to output the result.
My concern with this is if using QScriptEngine is appropriate for this. I've seen that it can be used to perform calculations using evaluate(). Besides the 4 "regular" operations ( +, -, * and /), I only anticipate that probably sqrt() and pow() might be required - but apparently, Math is also usable inside the evaluation string.
Also, I need to store and recover these formulas, so I was considering handling them as QStrings for that purpose, as I will need to write/read them to/from files.
Do you think this is a good approach? What would you suggest as a good read for this type of objectives?
Yes, this approach is good. I've used it for a similar task. Note that QScriptEngine uses JavaScript syntax, not C++ syntax. But JavaScript syntax is powerful and fulfills usual needs of user-defined formulas. It supports regular operators, math functions, brackets, local variables, etc.
You can store a formula in QString. If you need to execute the same formula multiple times, you should use QScriptProgram to compile a formula before executing.
Related
Context: I'm using Maxima on a platform that also uses KaTeX. For various reasons related to content management, this means that we are regularly using Maxima functions to generate the necessary KaTeX commands.
I'm currently trying to develop a group of functions that will facilitate generating different sets of strings corresponding to KaTeX commands for various symbols related to vectors.
Problem
I have written the following function makeKatexVector(x), which takes a string, list or list-of-lists and returns the same type of object, with each string wrapped in \vec{} (i.e. makeKatexVector(string) returns \vec{string} and makeKatexVector(["a","b"]) returns ["\vec{a}", "\vec{b}"] etc).
/* Flexible Make KaTeX Vector Version of List Items */
makeKatexVector(x):= block([ placeHolderList : x ],
if stringp(x) /* Special Handling if x is Just a String */
then placeHolderList : concat("\vec{", x, "}")
else if listp(x[1]) /* check to see if it is a list of lists */
then for j:1 thru length(x)
do placeHolderList[j] : makelist(concat("\vec{", k ,"}"), k, x[j] )
else if listp(x) /* check to see if it is just a list */
then placeHolderList : makelist(concat("\vec{", k, "}"), k, x)
else placeHolderList : "makeKatexVector error: not a list-of-lists, a list or a string",
return(placeHolderList));
Although I have my doubts about the efficiency or elegance of the above code, it seems to return the desired expressions; however, I would like to modify this function so that it can distinguish between single- and multi-character strings.
In particular, I'd like multi-character strings like x_1 to be returned as \vec{x}_1 and not \vec{x_1}.
In fact, I'd simply like to modify the above code so that \vec{} is wrapped around the first character of the string, regardless of how many characters there may be.
My Attempt
I was ready to tackle this with brute force (e.g. transcribing each character of a string into a list and then reassembling); however, the real programmer on the project suggested I look into "Regular Expressions". After exploring that endless rabbit hole, I found the command regex_subst; however, I can't find any Maxima documentation for it, and am struggling to reproduce the examples in the related documentation here.
Once I can work out the appropriate regex to use, I intend to implement this in the above code using an if statement, such as:
if slength(x) >1
then {regex command}
else {regular treatment}
If anyone knows of helpful resources on any of these fronts, I'd greatly appreciate any pointers at all.
Looks like you got the regex approach working, that's great. My advice about handling subscripted expressions in TeX, however, is to avoid working with names which contain underscores in Maxima, and instead work with Maxima expressions with indices, e.g. foo[k] instead of foo_k. While writing foo_k is a minor convenience in Maxima, you'll run into problems pretty quickly, and in order to straighten it out you might end up piling one complication on another.
E.g. Maxima doesn't know there's any relation between foo, foo_1, and foo_k -- those have no more in common than foo, abc, and xyz. What if there are 2 indices? foo_j_k will become something like foo_{j_k} by the preceding approach -- what if you want foo_{j, k} instead? (Incidentally the two are foo[j[k]] and foo[j, k] when represented by subscripts.) Another problematic expression is something like foo_bar_baz. Does that mean foo_bar[baz], foo[bar_baz] or foo_bar_baz?
The code for tex(x_y) yielding x_y in TeX is pretty old, so it's unlikely to go away, but over the years I've come to increasing feel like it should be avoided. However, the last time it came up and I proposed disabling that, there were enough people who supported it that we ended up keeping it.
Something that might be helpful, there is a function texput which allows you to specify how a symbol should appear in TeX output. For example:
(%i1) texput (v, "\\vec{v}");
(%o1) "\vec{v}"
(%i2) tex ([v, v[1], v[k], v[j[k]], v[j, k]]);
$$\left[ \vec{v} , \vec{v}_{1} , \vec{v}_{k} , \vec{v}_{j_{k}} ,
\vec{v}_{j,k} \right] $$
(%o2) false
texput can modify various aspects of TeX output; you can take a look at the documentation (see ? texput).
While I didn't expect that I'd work this out on my own, after several hours, I made some progress, so figured I'd share here, in case anyone else may benefit from the time I put in.
to load the regex in wxMaxima, at least on the MacOS version, simply type load("sregex");. I didn't have this loaded, and was trying to work through our custom platform, which cost me several hours.
take note that many of the arguments in the linked documentation by Dorai Sitaram occur in the reverse, or a different order than they do in their corresponding Maxima versions.
not all the "pregexp" functions exist in Maxima;
In addition to this, escaping special characters varied in important ways between wxMaxima, the inline Maxima compiler (running within Ace editor) and the actual rendered version on our platform; in particular, the inline compiler often returned false for expressions that compiled properly in wxMaxima and on the platform. Because I didn't have sregex loaded on wxMaxima from the beginning, I lost a lot of time to this.
Finally, the regex expression that achieved the desired substitution, in my case, was:
regex_subst("\vec{\\1}", "([[:alpha:]])", "v_1");
which returns vec{v}_1 in wxMaxima (N.B. none of my attempts to get wxMaxima to return \vec{v}_1 were successful; escaping the backslash just does not seem to work; fortunately, the usual escaped version \\vec{\\1} does return the desired form).
I have yet to adjust the code for the rest of the function, but I doubt that will be of use to anyone else, and wanted to be sure to post an update here, before anyone else took time to assist me.
Always interested in better methods / practices or any other pointers / feedback.
I'm trying to write a script that in some way represents algebraic expressions, and I'm trying to make it as general as possible so that it can accommodate, eventually, things like multivariable expressions, e.g. xy^2 = z and other things like trig functions. However, I need my script to be able to simplify expressions, e.g. simplifying x^2 + 2x^2 = 3x^2 and in order to that I need it to recognize like terms. However, in order to get it to recognize like terms I need it to be able to tell me when two expressions are identical, even if they don't look the same. So for instance I need == to be defined in such a way that the computer will know that (x^2)^2 is x^4.
Now so far, the only way that I can see to make a computer know when two algebraic expressions are identical like this, is to try to create some kind of a "normal form" for all expressions, and then compare the normal forms. So for instance, if I distribute all exponents over multiplication, multiply powers of sums, distribute multiplication over addition, and calculate all simple expressions of just numbers, then this might be at least close to something like a normal form. So for example the normal form of (x^2)^2 would be x^4 and the normal form of x^4 would be x^4. Since they have the same normal form, the computer can tell me they're equivalent expressions. It would say the normal form of (2x)^2+x^2 is 4x^2+x^2 and so wouldn't recognize that this normal form is the same as the normal form of 5x^2, though.
I'm thinking, at this stage I could try to define some "weak" notion of equality, that of equality of normal-form-components. Use this notion of equality, group like terms in the normal form, and this would get me a more universally correct normal form.
But all of this sounds like an absolute ton of work. So far I've defined classes for Expressions, which have subclasses of Variables, Sums, Products, powers, and so on, and right now I'm about 1/4 of the way through defining the function that would produce the normal form of a power object--I haven't even begun on the normal form for a Sum or Product class--and already the code is many pages long, and I'm still not sure that it'll ultimately work the way I want it to.
So my question is, how do you accomplish this goal? Will my current method work? Does anyone know how software like Wolfram|Alpha or the sympy package accomplish this functionality?
I'm trying to implement a Search-Function using c++ and libpqxx.
But I've got the following problem:
The user is able to specify 4 different search patterns (each of them optional):
from date
till date
document type
document id
Each of them is optional. So if I want to use prepared statements I would need 2^4 = 16 different prepared statements. Well, it's possible, but I want to avoid this.
Here as an example what a prepared statement in libpqxx looks like:
_connection->prepare("ExampleStmnt", "SELECT * FROM foo WHERE title=$1 AND id=$2 AND date=$3")
("text", pqxx::prepare::treat_string)
("smallint", pqxx::prepare::treat_direct)
("timestamp", pqxx::prepare::treat_direct);
Therefore I also have no idea how I would piece such a prepared statement together.
Is there any other 'nice' way that I didn't think of?
The best you can do is to have four different ->prepare clauses, depending on how many search criteria are actually used, concatenate the criteria into your String, and then branch to one of the four prepare code blocks. (That will probably spook your style checker into thinking you are creating an injection vulnerability, but of course you aren't, as long as you insert only elements of the closed set os column names.)
Note that this isn't a very nice solution, but even Stephane Faroult (in The Art of SQL) says it's the best one possible, so who am I to argue?
I'm writing some excel-like C++ console app for homework.
My app should be able to accept formulas for it's cells, for example it should evaluate something like this:
Sum(tablename\fieldname[recordnumber], fieldname[recordnumber], ...)
tablename\fieldname[recordnumber] points to a cell in another table,
fieldname[recordnumber] points to a cell in current table
or
Sin(fieldname[recordnumber])
or
anotherfieldname[recordnumber]
or
"10" // (simply a number)
something like that.
functions are Sum, Ave, Sin, Cos, Tan, Cot, Mul, Div, Pow, Log (10), Ln, Mod
It's pathetic, I know, but it's my homework :'(
So does anyone know a trick to evaluate something like this?
Ok, nice homework question by the way.
It really depends on how heavy you want this to be. You can create a full expression parser (which is fun but also time consuming).
In order to do that, you need to describe the full grammar and write a frontend (have a look at lex and yacc or flexx and bison.
But as I see your question you can limit yourself to three subcases:
a simple value
a lookup (possibly to an other table)
a function which inputs are lookups
I think a little OO design can helps you out here.
I'm not sure if you have to deal with real time refresh and circular dependency checks. Else they can be tricky too.
For the parsing, I'd look at Recursive descent parsing. Then have a table that maps all possible function names to function pointers:
struct FunctionTableEntry {
string name;
double (*f)(double);
};
You should write a parser. Parser should take the expression i.e., each line and should identify the command and construct the parse tree. This is the first phase. In the second phase you can evaluate the tree by substituting the data for each elements of the command.
Previous responders have hit it on the head: you need to parse the cell contents, and interpret them.
StackOverflow already has a whole slew of questions on building compilers and interperters where you can find pointers to resources. Some of them are:
Learning to write a compiler (#1669 people!)
Learning Resources on Parsers, Interpreters, and Compilers
What are good resources on compilation?
References Needed for Implementing an Interpreter in C/C++
...
and so on.
Aside: I never have the energy to link them all together, or even try to build a comprehensive list.
I guess you cannot use yacc/lex (or the like) so you have to parse "manually":
Iterate over the string and divide it into its parts. What a part is depends on you grammar (syntax). That way you can find the function names and the parameters. The difficulty of this depends on the complexity of your syntax.
Maybe you should read a bit about lexical analysis.
We would like to have user defined formulas in our c++ program.
e.g. The value v = x + ( y - (z - 2)) / 2. Later in the program the user would define x,y and z -> the program should return the result of the calculation. Somewhen later the formula may get changed, so the next time the program should parse the formula and add the new values. Any ideas / hints how to do something like this ? So far I just came to the solution to write a parser to calculate these formulas - maybe any ideas about that ?
If it will be used frequently and if it will be extended in the future, I would almost recommend adding either Python or Lua into your code. Lua is a very lightweight scripting language which you can hook into and provide new functions, operators etc. If you want to do more robust and complicated things, use Python instead.
You can represent your formula as a tree of operations and sub-expressions. You may want to define types or constants for Operation types and Variables.
You can then easily enough write a method that recurses through the tree, applying the appropriate operations to whatever values you pass in.
Building your own parser for this should be a straight-forward operation:
) convert the equation from infix to postfix notation (a typical compsci assignment) (I'd use a stack)
) wait to get the values you want
) pop the stack of infix items, dropping the value for the variable in where needed
) display results
Using Spirit (for example) to parse (and the 'semantic actions' it provides to construct an expression tree that you can then manipulate, e.g., evaluate) seems like quite a simple solution. You can find a grammar for arithmetic expressions there for example, if needed... (it's quite simple to come up with your own).
Note: Spirit is very simple to learn, and quite adapted for such tasks.
There's generally two ways of doing it, with three possible implementations:
as you've touched on yourself, a library to evaluate formulas
compiling the formula into code
The second option here is usually done either by compiling something that can be loaded in as a kind of plugin, or it can be compiled into a separate program that is then invoked and produces the necessary output.
For C++ I would guess that a library for evaluation would probably exist somewhere so that's where I would start.
If you want to write your own, search for "formal automata" and/or "finite state machine grammar"
In general what you will do is parse the string, pushing characters on a stack as you go. Then start popping the characters off and perform tasks based on what is popped. It's easier to code if you force equations to reverse-polish notation.
To make your life easier, I think getting this kind of input is best done through a GUI where users are restricted in what they can type in.
If you plan on doing it from the command line (that is the impression I get from your post), then you should probably define a strict set of allowable inputs (e.g. only single letter variables, no whitespace, and only certain mathematical symbols: ()+-*/ etc.).
Then, you will need to:
Read in the input char array
Parse it in order to build up a list of variables and actions
Carry out those actions - in BOMDAS order
With ANTLR you can create a parser/compiler that will interpret the user input, then execute the calculations using the Visitor pattern. A good example is here, but it is in C#. You should be able to adapt it quickly to your needs and remain using C++ as your development platform.