For counting, is there a reason why you can't use a `let` block?
let count = 0
global foo
function foo(args...)
count += 1
...
end
global foo_count()
function foo_count()
return count
end
end # let count
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 7:36:10 AM UTC-7, Cedric St-Jean wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 10:59:18 PM UTC-4, Tim Holy wrote:
>>
>> You may want to check the IProfile.jl package, which does a lot of this
>> kind of
>> stuff (including inserting timing code around each line of a function).
>>
>
> That was an interesting read, thank you. As a common lisper, all those
> gensyms were oddly comforting.
>
> Cédric
>
>
>>
>> --Tim
>>
>> On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 06:47:31 PM Cedric St-Jean wrote:
>> > Yichao Yu: How would you retrieve the counter's value? How would you
>> > distinguish between the counter in function foo vs. the one in function
>> bar?
>> > On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 3:56:12 PM UTC-4, Yichao Yu wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Cedric St-Jean <[email protected]
>> > >
>> > > <javascript:>> wrote:
>> > > > In my case, I wanted to count how many times some functions were
>> called.
>> > > > Kinda like a profiler, but for a different purpose. If the function
>> name
>> > >
>> > > was
>> > >
>> > > > available, I could move the macro "call" inside the function body,
>> which
>> > > > would make more sense.
>> > >
>> > > Than what about sth like
>> > >
>> > > ```julia
>> > > macro count_execute()
>> > >
>> > > @gensym counter
>> > > quote
>> > >
>> > > global $counter
>> > > if isdefined(:($counter))
>> > >
>> > > $counter = $counter::Int + 1
>> > >
>> > > else
>> > >
>> > > $counter = 0
>> > >
>> > > end
>> > >
>> > > end
>> > >
>> > > end
>> > > ```
>> > >
>> > > > On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 2:25:42 PM UTC-4, Isaiah wrote:
>> > > >> I'm still curious what problem / design this is trying to solve.
>> Be
>> > >
>> > > aware
>> > >
>> > > >> that doing something like this for custom runtime dispatching is
>> likely
>> > >
>> > > to
>> > >
>> > > >> be slow (except in the macro case which does not really count).
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Are you both coming from some other programming language that
>> exposes
>> > >
>> > > this
>> > >
>> > > >> in a first-class way? Both PHP and JavaScript seem to make this
>> > >
>> > > information
>> > >
>> > > >> available, but R does not (except for a callstack hack).
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Cedric St-Jean <
>> [email protected]>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>> I also wish that the name was visible... I wrote the macro a few
>> days
>> > > >>> ago:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> macro expose_name(fdef)
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> @capture(fdef, begin function fname_ (args__) body__ end end)
>> > > >>> esc(:(function $(fname) ($(args...))
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> let function_name = $(Expr(:quote, fname))
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> $(body...)
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> end))
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> end
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> @expose_name function foo () @show function_name end
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Cédric
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 12:54:38 PM UTC-4, Tim Holy
>> wrote:
>> > > >>>> Alternatively,
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> julia> for (offset, f) in enumerate((:foo1, :foo2, :foo3))
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> @eval begin
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> function $f(x)
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> println("This is ", $f)
>> > > >>>> x + $offset
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> end
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> end
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> end
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> julia> foo1(0)
>> > > >>>> This is foo1
>> > > >>>> 1
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> julia> foo2(0)
>> > > >>>> This is foo2
>> > > >>>> 2
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> julia> foo3(0)
>> > > >>>> This is foo3
>> > > >>>> 3
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> --Tim
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>> On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 12:48:29 PM Isaiah Norton wrote:
>> > > >>>> > Can I ask what is your use-case, and whether you've done this
>> in
>> > >
>> > > some
>> > >
>> > > >>>> > other
>> > > >>>> > language? From a quick google there are appear to be some
>> (possibly
>> > > >>>> > non-standard) C and C++ compiler defines that provide the
>> current
>> > > >>>> > function
>> > > >>>> > name, but other than that:
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > - Python rejected a PEP for this feature (
>> > > >>>> > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3130/)
>> > > >>>> > - Java does not support it in a first-class way ("could use
>> > > >>>> > stacktrace, but
>> > > >>>> > potentially unreliable")
>> > > >>>> > - some lisps appear to have interactive mode support for this
>> kind
>> > >
>> > > of
>> > >
>> > > >>>> > introspection, but nothing general.
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > The recommended way to solve problems that require this level
>> of
>> > > >>>> > introspection is to do code generation via metaprogramming.
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Isaiah Norton
>> > > >>>> > <[email protected]>
>> > > >>>> >
>> > > >>>> > wrote:
>> > > >>>> > > No.
>> > > >>>> > >
>> > > >>>> > > Ok, technically, you could do this (inspired by
>> > >
>> > > https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/8066#issuecomment-61136584):
>>
>> > > >>>> > > julia> function foo()
>> > > >>>> > >
>> > > >>>> > > bt = backtrace()
>> > > >>>> > > lookup = ccall(:jl_lookup_code_address, Any,
>> (Ptr{Void},
>> > > >>>> > >
>> > > >>>> > > Int32),
>> > > >>>> > >
>> > > >>>> > > bt[2], 0)
>> > > >>>> > >
>> > > >>>> > > name = lookup[1]
>> > > >>>> > > end
>> > > >>>> > >
>> > > >>>> > > foo (generic function with 1 method)
>> > > >>>> > >
>> > > >>>> > > julia> foo()
>> > > >>>> > >
>> > > >>>> > > :foo
>> > > >>>> > >
>> > > >>>> > > But that is a really, really bad idea. Please don't do that.
>> > > >>>> > >
>> > > >>>> > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Dominique Orban <
>> > > >>>> > >
>> > > >>>> > > [email protected]> wrote:
>> > > >>>> > >> Sorry if this has been asked before. Is it possible to
>> determine
>> > > >>>> > >> the name
>> > > >>>> > >> of a function inside that function? For example,
>> > > >>>> > >>
>> > > >>>> > >> function blah(x)
>> > > >>>> > >>
>> > > >>>> > >> my_name = ... # should evaluate to "blah" or :blah
>> > > >>>> > >>
>> > > >>>> > >> end
>> > > >>>> > >>
>> > > >>>> > >> I didn't see that in the introspection section of the
>> > > >>>> > >> documentation.
>> > > >>>> > >>
>> > > >>>> > >> Thanks!
>>
>>
