im trying to understand the iterators, in many examples I founf something like this:
function square(iteratorMaxCount,currentNumber)
if currentNumber<iteratorMaxCount
then
currentNumber = currentNumber+1
return currentNumber, currentNumber*currentNumber
end
end
function squares(iteratorMaxCount)
return square,iteratorMaxCount,0 // why not return square(iteratorMAxCount,0)????
end
for i,n in squares(3)
do
print(i,n)
end
First I dont understand the line I comment, and I dont find an easy example of how to do a Stateful Iterator and a Stateless iterator. Can anybody help me? thanks
From Lua Reference Manual 3.3.5:
A for statement like
for var_1, ···, var_n in explist do block end is equivalent to the code:
do
local f, s, var = explist
while true do
local var_1, ···, var_n = f(s, var)
if var_1 == nil then break end
var = var_1
block
end
end Note the following:
explist is evaluated only once. Its results are an iterator function,
a state, and an initial value for the first iterator variable. f, s,
and var are invisible variables. The names are here for explanatory
purposes only. You can use break to exit a for loop. The loop
variables var_i are local to the loop; you cannot use their values
after the for ends. If you need these values, then assign them to
other variables before breaking or exiting the loop.
So squares() has to return a function (square) a state (iteratorMaxCount) and an initial value (0) in order to work with a generic for loop.
Read the reference manual, Programming in Lua.
Related
I'm new to Lua and trying to figure out how the return statement in the squares function below is being used in the following code snippet:
function squares(iteratorMaxCount)
return square,iteratorMaxCount,0
end
The square parameter in the return statement refers to a function with the following signature:
function square(iteratorMaxCount,currentNumber)
What's confusing me is that the return statement looks like it's returning three values. What I think it's actually doing, however, is passing iteratorMaxCount and 0 as the arguments to a square function call.
Can anyone explain to me what's happening with this syntax? How is this serving as a function call as opposed to returning three values? In my mind, it feels as though the return statement should be written return square(iteratorMaxCount, 0) as opposed to return square, iteratorMaxCount, 0. I know that this is obviously wrong, but I can't figure out why.
I've tried searching through the Lua Manual, Lua Reference Guide, and searching Google, but I can't seem to find anything that explains this particular syntax. Can anyone point me in the right direction, please?
Thanks in advance.
Full code below via
Tutorialspoint
function square(iteratorMaxCount,currentNumber)
if currentNumber<iteratorMaxCount
then
currentNumber = currentNumber+1
return currentNumber, currentNumber*currentNumber
end
end
function squares(iteratorMaxCount)
return square,iteratorMaxCount,0
end
for i,n in squares(3)
do
print(i,n)
end
squares really does return three values, the first of which is a function. squares does not call square at all.
The trick here is how the for ... in syntax works. In the Lua 5.3 Reference Manual, section 3.3.5 says:
A for statement like:
for var_1, ···, var_n in explist do block end
is equivalent to the code:
do
local f, s, var = explist
while true do
local var_1, ···, var_n = f(s, var)
if var_1 == nil then break end
var = var_1
block
end
end
So the keyword "in" needs to be followed by three values:
an "iterator function" for getting the variables in each iteration
a "state" value to pass to the function each time
an initial value to pass to the function the first time
After the first time the function is called, the first value from the previous call is passed back into the next function call. When the first value returned from the function is nil, the for loop ends.
So in this example, squares(max) is designed to be used after "in", using square as the iterator function, max as the "state", 0 as the initial value, and a number and its square as the loop data values.
I know I can use function(a, b, ...) to solve variable parameters problems. But how can I do if I want to create a function like table.insert (table, [pos,] value) ?
Of cause, not in the following way:
function (table, pos, value)
if value == nil then
pos = value
value = nil
end
-- do something
end
Lua does not have function overloading or typechecking of arguments, if needed those should be implemented by the one needing.
Conveying the usage of your function is also up to you.
If you are not satisfied with your provided snippet, you can rewrite it in other manners for example :
function(arg1,arg2,arg3)
tab=arg1
if not arg3 then
value=arg2
index=#tab+1
else
assert(type(arg2)=='numer',"bad argument #2 to 'insert' (number expected, got table)")
value=arg3
index=arg2
end
table.insert(tab,index,value)
end
or:
f2=function(a,b)
--do smth
end
f3=function(a,b,c) end
f=function(...)
args={...}
nargin=#args
if nargin==2 then
f2(args[1],args[2]) --one way to use varied arguments
elseif nargin==3 then
f3(...) --other one
else error("wrong number of arguments")
end
end
I don't recommend you making functions with optional middle positional arguments though. At least not in a language without compile time type check, and even in those as well.
If you really want optional arguments, put them in the table:
function(args)
tab=args.table
index=args.index or #tab+1
value=args.value
--other arguments, options and associated logic here
table.insert(tab,index,value)
end
Sorry if this is too obvious, but I am a total newcomer to lua, and I can't find it in the reference.
Is there a NAME_OF_FUNCTION function in Lua, that given a function gives me its name so that I can index a table with it? Reason I want this is that I want to do something like this:
local M = {}
local function export(...)
for x in ...
M[NAME_OF_FUNCTION(x)] = x
end
end
local function fun1(...)
...
end
local function fun2(...)
...
end
.
.
.
export(fun1, fun2, ...)
return M
There simply is no such function. I guess there is no such function, as functions are first class citizens. So a function is just a value like any other, referenced to by variable. Hence the NAME_OF_FUNCTION function wouldn't be very useful, as the same function can have many variable pointing to it, or none.
You could emulate one for global functions, or functions in a table by looping through the table (arbitrary or _G), checking if the value equals x. If so you have found the function name.
a=function() print"fun a" end
b=function() print"fun b" end
t={
a=a,
c=b
}
function NameOfFunctionIn(fun,t) --returns the name of a function pointed to by fun in table t
for k,v in pairs(t) do
if v==fun then return k end
end
end
print(NameOfFunctionIn(a,t)) -- prints a, in t
print(NameOfFunctionIn(b,t)) -- prints c
print(NameOfFunctionIn(b,_G)) -- prints b, because b in the global table is b. Kind of a NOOP here really.
Another approach would be to wrap functions in a table, and have a metatable set up that calls the function, like this:
fun1={
fun=function(self,...)
print("Hello from "..self.name)
print("Arguments received:")
for k,v in pairs{...} do print(k,v) end
end,
name="fun1"
}
fun_mt={
__call=function(t,...)
t.fun(t,...)
end,
__tostring=function(t)
return t.name
end
}
setmetatable(fun1,fun_mt)
fun1('foo')
print(fun1) -- or print(tostring(fun1))
This will be a bit slower than using bare functions because of the metatable lookup. And it will not prevent anyone from changing the name of the function in the state, changing the name of the function in the table containing it, changing the function, etc etc, so it's not tamper proof. You could also strip the tables of just by indexing like fun1.fun which might be good if you export it as a module, but you loose the naming and other tricks you could put into the metatable.
Technically this is possible, here's an implementation of the export() function:
function export(...)
local env = getfenv(2);
local funcs = {...};
for i=1, select("#", ...) do
local func = funcs[i];
for local_index = 1, math.huge do
local local_name, local_value = debug.getlocal(2, local_index);
if not local_name then
break;
end
if local_value == func then
env[local_name] = local_value;
break;
end
end
end
return env;
end
It uses the debug API, would require some changes for Lua 5.2, and finally I don't necessarily endorse it as a good way to write modules, I'm just answering the question quite literally.
Try this:
http://pgl.yoyo.org/luai/i/tostring
tostring( x ) should hopefully be what you are looking for
If I am not wrong (and I probably will, because I actually never programmed in Lua, just read a bunch of papers and articles), internally there is already a table with function names (like locals and globals in Python), so you should be able to perform a reverse-lookup to see what key matches a function reference.
Anyway, just speculating.
But the fact is that looking at your code, you already know the name of the functions, so you are free to construct the table. If you want to be less error prone, it would be easier to use the name of the function to get the function reference (with eval or something like that) than the other way around.
I'm just getting started with Lua. In the example I'm learning from (the Ghosts & Monsters Corona open source), I see this pattern repeatedly.
local director = require("director")
local mainGroup = display.newGroup()
local function main()
mainGroup:insert(director.directorView)
openfeint = require ("openfeint")
openfeint.init( "App Key Here", "App Secret Here", "Ghosts vs. Monsters", "App ID Here" )
director:changeScene( "loadmainmenu" )
return true
end
main()
Is this some sort of convention experienced Lua programmers recommend or are there genuine advantages to doing it this way? Why wouldn't you just skip the function all together and do this:
local director = require("director")
local mainGroup = display.newGroup()
mainGroup:insert(director.directorView)
local openfeint = require ("openfeint")
openfeint.init( "App Key Here", "App Secret Here", "Ghosts vs. Monsters", "App ID Here" )
director:changeScene( "loadmainmenu" )
Is there some implicit benefit to the first style over the second? Thanks!
Is this some sort of convention experienced Lua programmers recommend or are there genuine advantages to doing it this way?
It's not typical. The advantage is that object state is private, but that's not enough of an advantage to recommend it.
I see this pattern repeatedly.
I've never seen it before, and it happens only once in the source you posted.
EDIT: Adding a response to a question asked in the comments below this post.
A function which accesses external local variables binds to those variables and is called a 'closure'. Lua (for historical reasons) refers to those bound variables as 'upvalues'. For example:
local function counter()
local i = 1
return function()
print(i)
i = i + 1
end
end
local a, b = counter(), counter()
a() a() a() b() --> 1 2 3 1
a and b are closures bound to different copies of i, as you can see from the output. In other words, you can think of a closure as function with it's own private state. You can use this to simulate objects:
function Point(x,y)
local p = {}
function p.getX() -- syntax sugar for p.getX = function()
return x
end
function p.setX(x_)
x = x_
end
-- for brevity, not implementing a setter/getter for y
return p
end
p1 = Point(10,20)
p1.setX(50)
print(p1.getX())
Point returns a table of closures, each bound to the locals x and y. The table doesn't contain the point's state, the closures themselves do, via their upvalues. An important point is that each time Point is called it creates new closures, which is not very efficient if you have large quantities of objects.
Another way of creating classes in Lua is to create functions that take a table as the first argument, with state being stored in the table:
function Point(x,y)
local p = {x=x,y=y}
function p:getX() -- syntax sugar for p.getX = function(self)
return self.x
end
function p:setX(x)
self.x = x
end
return p
end
p1 = Point(10,20)
p1:setX(50) -- syntax sugar for p1.setX(p1, 50)
print(p1:getX()) -- syntax sugar for p1.getX(p1)
So far, we're still creating new copies of each method, but now that we're not relying on upvalues for state, we can fix that:
PointClass = {}
function PointClass:getX() return self.x end
function PointClass:setX(x) self.x = x end
function Point(x,y)
return {
x = x,
y = y,
getX = PointClass.getX,
setX = PointClass.getY,
}
end
Now the methods are created once, and all Point instances share the same closures. An even better way of doing this is to use Lua's metaprogramming facility to make new Point instances automatically look in PointClass for methods not found in the instance itself:
PointClass = {}
PointClass.__index = PointClass -- metamethod
function PointClass:getX() return self.x end
function PointClass:setX(x) self.x = x end
function Point(x,y)
return setmetatable({x=x,y=y}, PointClass)
end
p1 = Point(10,20)
-- the p1 table does not itself contain a setX member, but p1 has a metatable, so
-- when an indexing operation fails, Lua will look in the metatable for an __index
-- metamethod. If that metamethod is a table, Lua will look for getX in that table,
-- resolving p1.setX to PointClass.setX.
p1:setX(50)
This is a more idiomatic way of creating classes in Lua. It's more memory efficient and more flexible (in particular, it makes it easy to implement inheritance).
I frequently write my own Lua scripts this way because it improves readability in this case:
function main()
helper1( helper2( arg[1] ) )
helper3()
end
function helper1( foo )
print( foo )
end
function helper2( bar )
return bar*bar
end
function helper3()
print( 'hello world!' )
end
main()
This way the "main" code is at the top, but I can still define the necessary global functions before it executes.
A simple trick, really. I can't think of any reason to do this besides readability.
The first style could be used too improove readability, but I would rather give the function some meaningful name instead of main or just go without the function.
By the way, I think it's always a good practice to name blocks of code, i.e. put them into functions or methods. It helps explain your intend with that piece of code, and encourages reuse.
I don't see much point to the first style as you've shown it. But if it said something like if arg then main() end at the bottom, the script might (just might) be useful as a loadable "library" in addition to being a standalone script. That said, having a main() like that smacks of C, not Lua; I think you're right to question it.
I have a table that has multiple functions in it. I'm trying to write a single function that will go through and use all the functions by passing random information into it.
Methods = {}
insert functions into Methods Table
function Methods:Multi() if #self > 0
then .........................
I'm guessing i need a loop that goes through the entire table but I can't do #self because i need it to do each function multiple times. Not sure how to pass in random info to the function either. Any help would be appreciated
Your problem doesn't seem to be all that specific - you're likely going to need to define exactly what you want to happen in more detail in order to be able to implement a program for it. (Sort of like if you told me "I need a program that calculates a number" - I'd probably respond "okay, what number do you want it to calculate?"
Things to consider:
Exactly how many times do you want to call each function? Will this be the same for each function? Will it vary?
If the number of calls varies, what should determine this?
How exactly do you want to determine what parameters are passed? Their types/count? Their values?
A very basic starting framework might look like this:
Methods = {}
-- Insert functions into Methods table
for _,func in ipairs(Methods) do
for i=1,5 do
func()
end
end
which would call each function 5 times, albeit w/o arguments.
I modified the above suggestion to
function CallFuncs(times, funcs, ...)
while (times > 0) do
for _, func in pairs(funcs) do
func(...)
end
times = times - 1
end
end
Example usage:
t = {
function( n ) print( n ) end,
function( n ) print( #n ) end,
}
CallFuncs( 2, t, 'foo' )
yields
foo
3
foo
3
Try this:
function CallFuncs(times, funcs, ...)
for i=1,times do
for _, func in pairs(funcs) do
if type(...) == "table" then func(unpack(...)) else func(...) end
end
end
end
Usage:
local t = {
function(n) print(n) end,
function(n) print(n+1) end,
function(n) print(n+2) end
}
CallFuncs(3, t, 2)
This assumes all the functions in the table have more or less the same arguments.
Info:
The ... you see is lua's syntax for variable arguments (these are packed into a table and used as the last argument to the function), and the unpack function takes a table and multi-returns a series of values.
If you are asking for something to call a list of functions, I just typed this very small module for you (if you can even call it that).
-- No guarantees whether this will work.
function ExecFunc (fnctn,nTimes,Threaded,...)
local to_call = function ()
fnctn(...)
end
for x = 1,nTimes do
if Threaded then
coroutine.resume(coroutine.create(to_call))
else
to_call()
end
end
end
function ExecFuncs (Async,...)
-- All parts of ... should be tables {function f, number t[, table args]}
local funcInfo = {...}
for _,funcThing in pairs(funcInfo) do
local a = funcThing.args
if a then
ExecFunc(funcThing.f,funcThing.t,Async,unpack(a))
else
ExecFunc(funcThing.f,funcThing.t,Async)
end
end
end
-- These don't check for argument validity,
-- so you should either be careful with the arguments
-- or call these in protected mode (with pcall).
If I wasted my time with that, it was fun anyway, but after typing it I reread your question... You want something to iterate through a list of functions and pass a random number to each one.
function ExecuteWithRandomValues (func_list,async)
assert(type(func_list) == "table","Expected table.")
local passbacks = {}
local threads
if async then
threads = {}
end
for _,func in pairs(func_list) do
assert(type(func) == "function","Value [" .. _ .. "] is not a function.")
local toCall = function ()
local rnd = math.random(-math.huge,math.huge)
local out = func(rnd)
passbacks[_] = {input = rnd, output = out}
end
if async then
table.insert(threads,coroutine.create(toCall))
else
toCall()
end
end
if async then
for _,thread in pairs(threads) do
coroutine.resume(thread)
end
for _,thread in pairs(threads) do
while coroutine.status(thread) ~= "dead" do
end
end
end
return passbacks
end
-- Again, no guarantees this thing is free of errors.
-- There are better ways to run and check the statuses
-- of asynchronous threads, but this is fairly convenient.