each | macro library that converts native imperative syntax | Functional Programming library
kandi X-RAY | each Summary
kandi X-RAY | each Summary
ThoughtWorks Each is a macro library that converts native imperative syntax to Scalaz's monadic expression. See the object cats in Dsl.scala for the similar feature for Cats.
Support
Quality
Security
License
Reuse
Top functions reviewed by kandi - BETA
Currently covering the most popular Java, JavaScript and Python libraries. See a Sample of each
each Key Features
each Examples and Code Snippets
Lines of Code : 252License : Non-SPDX (Apache License 2.0)
Copydef scan(fn,
elems,
initializer=None,
parallel_iterations=10,
back_prop=True,
swap_memory=False,
infer_shape=True,
reverse=False,
name=None):
"""scan on the list of tensors unp def bucket_by_sequence_length(element_length_func,
bucket_boundaries,
bucket_batch_sizes,
padded_shapes=None,
padding_values=None, def _call_for_each_replica(distribution, fn, args, kwargs):
"""Run `fn` in separate threads, once per replica/worker device.
Args:
distribution: the DistributionStrategy object.
fn: function to run (will be run once per replica, each in Community Discussions
Trending Discussions on Functional Programming
QUESTION
I have been trying to learn about functional programming, but I still struggle with thinking like a functional programmer. One such hangup is how one would implement index-heavy operations which rely strongly on loops/order-of-execution.
For example, consider the following Java code:
...ANSWER
Answered 2022-Mar-07 at 21:17This is not an index-heavy operation, in fact you can do this with a one-liner with scanl1 :: (a -> a -> a) -> [a] -> [a]:
QUESTION
I want to write a function that checks if the first list is longer than the second list and one of them can be infinite. However I can't find a working solution.
...ANSWER
Answered 2022-Mar-22 at 20:54Plain old natural numbers will not do the trick, because you can't calculate the natural number length of an infinite list in finite time. However, lazy natural numbers can do it.
QUESTION
Haskell provides a convenient function forever that repeats a monadic effect indefinitely. It can be defined as follows:
ANSWER
Answered 2022-Feb-05 at 20:34The execution engine starts off with a pointer to your loop, and lazily expands it as it needs to find out what IO action to execute next. With your definition of forever, here's what a few iterations of the loop like like in terms of "objects stored in memory":
QUESTION
I was solving a recursive problem in haskell, although I could get the solution I would like to cache outputs of sub problems since has over lapping sub-problem property.
The question is, given a grid of dimension n*m, and an integer k, how many ways are there to reach the gird (n, m) from (1, 1) with not more than k change of direction?
Here is the code without of memoization
...ANSWER
Answered 2021-Dec-16 at 16:23In Haskell these kinds of things aren't the most trivial ones, indeed. You would really like to have some in-place mutations going on to save up on memory and time, so I don't see any better way than equipping the frightening ST monad.
This could be done over various data structures, arrays, vectors, repa tensors. I chose HashTable from hashtables because it is the simplest to use and is performant enough to make sense in my example.
First of all, introduction:
QUESTION
I have a function in Haskell that is defined as follows:
...ANSWER
Answered 2021-Nov-30 at 09:42Haskell values have types. Each value has a type. One type. It can't be two different types at the same time.
Thus, since x is returned as the result of if's consequent, the type of the whole if ... then ... else ... expression is the same as x's type.
An if expression has a type. Thus both its consequent and alternative expression must have that same type, since either of them can be returned, depending on the value of the test. Thus both must have the same type.
Since x is also used in the test, it must be Bool. Then so must be y.
QUESTION
What is the syntax for a vector (array) of functions in APL?
I have tried the following but these are interpreted as a 3-train and a 2-train, respectively:
...ANSWER
Answered 2021-Nov-28 at 23:26Dyalog APL does not officially support function arrays, you can awkwardly emulate them by creating an array of namespaces with identically named functions.
QUESTION
In F# if I write
...ANSWER
Answered 2021-Nov-17 at 01:24To expand on the answer given in the comments, the first p is an immutable value, while the second p is a function. If you refer to an immutable value multiple times, then (obviously) its value doesn't change over time. But if you invoke a function multiple times, it executes each time, even if the arguments are the same each time.
Note that this is true even for pure functional languages, such as Haskell. If you want to avoid this execution cost, there's a specific technique called memoization that can be used to return cached results when the same inputs occur again. However, memoization has its own costs, and I'm not aware of any mainstream functional language that automatically memoizes all function calls.
QUESTION
I'm working trough the book Haskell in depth and I noticed following code example:
...ANSWER
Answered 2021-Nov-03 at 06:39Reader's type parameters aren't in the right order for that to be contramap for it. A Contravariant functor always needs to be contravariant in its last type parameter, but Reader is contravariant in its first type parameter. But you can do this:
QUESTION
I am experimenting with clojure's lazy sequences. In order to see when the evaluation of an item would occur, I created a function called square that prints the result before returning it. I then apply this function to a vector using map.
...ANSWER
Answered 2021-Oct-20 at 15:49Laziness isn't all-or-nothing, but some implementations of seq operate on 'chunks' of the input sequence (see here for an explanation). This is the case for vector which you can test for with chunked-seq?:
QUESTION
Haskell lists are constructed by a sequence of calls to cons, after desugaring syntax:
ANSWER
Answered 2021-Aug-30 at 04:46Lists in Haskell are special in syntax, but not fundamentally.
Fundamentally, Haskell list is defined like this:
Community Discussions, Code Snippets contain sources that include Stack Exchange Network
Vulnerabilities
No vulnerabilities reported
Install each
Support
Reuse Trending Solutions
Find, review, and download reusable Libraries, Code Snippets, Cloud APIs from over 650 million Knowledge Items
Find more librariesStay Updated
Subscribe to our newsletter for trending solutions and developer bootcamps
Share this Page
