Skip to main content

output formatting - Real and/or improved CForm of expressions


I'd quite like to be able to automatically generate C++ versions of certain mathematical expressions that I've manipulated in Mathematica. The resultant C++ code fragment is then going to be used independently of Mathematica.


Mathematica provides a CForm function, which almost seems like what I want, but I can't get it to do basic conversions nor tell it how to convert Mathematica symbols into my C++ identifiers.


For example, I would like the output from CForm[x[0]^2] or ToString[x[0]^2, CForm] to be "std::pow(obj.x_[0], 2)". This can be a string; it doesn't need to be usable in Mathematica any more. Of course, my actual expressions of interest are a lot more complicated than this.


But:



  • I don't have a way of telling Mathematica that symbol x is to be renamed to obj.x_ (not a valid symbol name in Mathematica so can't use it directly). String manipulation after conversion is too unreliable for this so a more direct method is preferred.

  • I can't tell Mathematica that x is an array, not a function, so it gives me x(0) instead of obj.x_[0].

  • Mathematica thinks I want to use its own Power function, but I'd really like to use std::pow.



Perhaps CForm isn't suited to this task, but I would still appreciate a solution using any other available method if possible. I really think that Mathematica should be able to help me here, because it knows where I need brackets and so on.


I've tried:


Format[x[a_], CForm] :=
"obj.x_[" <> ToString[a, CForm] <> "]"

Format[Power[a_, b_], CForm] :=
"std::pow(" <> ToString[a, CForm] <> ", " <> ToString[b, CForm] <> ")"

ToString[x[0]^2, CForm]


but of course Power is protected so the second SetDelayed gives me an error, and my ToString[x[0]^2, CForm] output is really weird (Power("obj.x_[0]",2)) because I've tried to use strings in the Format.



Answer



Using SymbolicC`


I suggest to use SymbolicC. It is a very flexible and robust way to generate C (or C++) code.


It is in fact pretty easy to override the standard rules for code generation. There is a GenerateCode function in SymbolicC` package, and if you inspect it, it has a number of definitions. The one relevant here is:


GenerateCode[CExpression[SymbolicC`Private`arg_], SymbolicC`Private`opts : OptionsPattern[]] := 
ToString[CForm[HoldForm[SymbolicC`Private`arg]]]

Since symbols like CExpression are inert (have no definitions), nothing prevents you from adding UpValues to them (but do it at your own risk, all the usual warnings about redefining some built-in functionality is in order. In particular, I would not recommend to use this simultaneously with compilation to C - but see below for the better version of this method):



CExpression /: GenerateCode[CExpression[Power[arg_, pow_]]] := 
"std::pow(" <> ToString[arg, CForm] <> ", " <> ToString[pow, CForm] <> ")"

Now, if you call


ToCCodeString[CExpression[a^2]]

you get


(* "std::pow(a, 2)" *)

This is, of course, a rather simplistic rule, and the rule can be much more complex, but this can be a start.



ClearAll[CExpression]

Making it safer


Now, let us see what can be done to make this redefinition safer / more local. My suggestion is to construct a dynamic environment for C++ code generation:


withModifiedCCodeGenerate = 
Function[code,
Block[{CExpression},
CExpression /: GenerateCode[CExpression[Power[arg_, pow_]]] :=
StringJoin[
"std::pow(",

ToString[arg, CForm],
", ",
ToString[pow, CForm],
")"
];
code
]
,
HoldAll
];


Now, when you need to generate your C++ code, you call your code-generation routine within this environment:


withModifiedCCodeGenerate @ ToCCodeString[CExpression[a^2]]

This is much safer since the changes to CExpression are now localized to the execution stack of the code you run inside this environment, while the global definitions are not affected.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...

equation solving - Invert and fit implicitly defined curve

I need to fit an implicitly defined curve. I thought I could get some data out of Solve , and then using FindFit . Therefore, I would like to find the relation the parametric curve defined by $F(x,y)=0$: Solve[-(1/2) + 1/2 (0.41202 BesselK[0, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]] + (0.101483 x BesselK[1, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]])/Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]) == 0, y] But I can't get an output: Solve was unable to solve the system with inexact coefficients or the system obtained by direct rationalization of inexact numbers present in the system. Since many of the methods used by Solve require exact input, providing Solve with an exact version of the system may help. >> Edit: In particular, I would like to fit the data coming from the curve with the expression of another curve, and not with a function $f(x)$. In particular, since this clearly looks like a cardioid , I would like it to fit to something like it. What other strategies could I try?

dynamic - How can I make a clickable ArrayPlot that returns input?

I would like to create a dynamic ArrayPlot so that the rectangles, when clicked, provide the input. Can I use ArrayPlot for this? Or is there something else I should have to use? Answer ArrayPlot is much more than just a simple array like Grid : it represents a ranged 2D dataset, and its visualization can be finetuned by options like DataReversed and DataRange . These features make it quite complicated to reproduce the same layout and order with Grid . Here I offer AnnotatedArrayPlot which comes in handy when your dataset is more than just a flat 2D array. The dynamic interface allows highlighting individual cells and possibly interacting with them. AnnotatedArrayPlot works the same way as ArrayPlot and accepts the same options plus Enabled , HighlightCoordinates , HighlightStyle and HighlightElementFunction . data = {{Missing["HasSomeMoreData"], GrayLevel[ 1], {RGBColor[0, 1, 1], RGBColor[0, 0, 1], GrayLevel[1]}, RGBColor[0, 1, 0]}, {GrayLevel[0], GrayLevel...