To be to the point; I've done Lua for awhile, but never quite got the terminology down to specifics, so I've been Googling for hours and haven't come up with a definitive answer.
Related to OOP in Lua, the terminology used include:
Object
Class
Function
Method
Table
The question is, when are these properly used? Such as in the example below:
addon = { }
function addon:test_func( )
return 'hi'
end
Q: From my understanding with Lua and OOP, addon is a table, however, I've read that it can be an object as well -- but when it is technically an object? After a function is created within that table?
Q: test_func is a function, however, I've read that it becomes a "Method" when it's placed within a table (class).
Q: The entire line addon:test_func( ), I know the colon is an operator, but what is the term for the entire line set of text? A class itself?
Finally, for this example code:
function addon:test_func( id, name )
end
Q: What is id and name, because I've seen some people identify them as arguments, but then other areas classify them as parameters, so I've stuck with parameters.
So in short, what is the proper terminology for each of these, and when do they become what they are?
Thanks
From my understanding with Lua and OOP, addon is a table, however, I've read that it can be an object as well -- but when it is technically an object? After a function is created within that table?
Object is not a well-defined term. I've seen it defined (in C) as any value whatsoever. In Lua, I would consider it synonymous with a table. You could also define it as an instance of a class.
test_func is a function, however, I've read that it becomes a "Method" when it's placed within a table (class).
You're basically right. A method is any function that is intended to be called with the colon notation. Metamethods are also methods, because, like regular methods, they define the behavior of tables.
The entire line addon:test_func( ), I know the colon is an operator, but what is the term for the entire line set of text? A class itself?
There's no name for that particular piece of code. It's just part of a method definition.
Also, I wouldn't call the colon an operator. An operator would be the plus in x + y where x and y both mean something by themselves. In addon:test_func(), test_func only has meaning inside the table addon, and it's only valid to use the colon when calling or defining methods. The colon is actually a form of syntactic sugar where the real operator is the indexing operator: []. Assuming that you're calling the method, the expansion would be: addon['test_func'](addon).
What is id and name, because I've seen some people identify them as arguments, but then other areas classify them as parameters, so I've stuck with parameters.
They're parameters. Parameters are the names that you declare in the function signature. Arguments are the values that you pass to a function.
Related
I am creating a game in love2d (LuaJIT) and I am creating a debug window for changing values at runtime. I was able to do that, however, I also now want to be able to call functions. For example, I traverse a table and there is a function in this table called "hello" which is written like this:
self.hello = function(str, num)
print(string.format("%s: %d", str, num))
end
From the expression of type(object.hello) I only see function. If it had been a table, I could have traversed it and see the keys and values, but it is just a "function" and I have no idea how to properly call it, as I don't know what arguments does it take and how many. Is there a way to find this out at runtime in lua? Maybe this information is also stored in some table elsewhere?
it is just a "function" and I have no idea how to properly call it
Neither does Lua. As far as Lua is concerned, any Lua function can take any number of parameters and return any number of parameters. These parameters could be of any type, as could its return values.
Lua itself does not store this information. Or at least, not in any way you could retrieve without doing some decompiling of its byte-code. And since you're using LuaJIT, that "decompiling" might require decompiling assembly.
I have some proprietary implementation of lua, and all the variables exposed to me are in the form of 'ME.AV123' (for example). What is 'ME'? Is it a namespace? Is it a class? Is there a way to tell? Should I be able to do some sort of type(ME) (which does not seem to work)? In the documentation it says the keyword 'ME' is used to access the objects in the local database.
Follow-up, bonus question - Is there a way to get to all the variables in ME? I.e. - like the global variables use _G[varname], is there an equivalent way to do this for ME?
I apologize if I am not giving you enough. I am new to Lua, and I have relatively limited functionality through this .... thing.
Just to maybe put a finer point on it, and illustrate what I am actually trying to do:
I can interact with some set of variables, which are all in the documentation. All of them are name(addressed?) 'ME.varname'. So, to set 'AV120' to '1', I would say ME.AV120 = 1. I need to set some.. few dozen of these things, and would like a way to loop through all the variables, setting them as I go. I would think something like:
for i,j in pairs(mySettingsTable) do
ME[i] = j
end
Does this make sense?
From the Lua reference manual:
https://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/manual.html#2.1
The language supports this representation by providing a.name as
syntactic sugar for a["name"].
So ME.AV123 is the same as ME["AV123"].
It is just a more convenient form of indexing.
type() returns a string, in case you're wondering why the function does nothing on it's own. print(type(ME)) should work.
increment([]) -> [];
increment([H|T]) -> [H+1|increment(T)].
decrement([]) -> [];
decrement([H|T]) -> [H-1|decrement(T)].
So I have this code but I don't know how they properly work like in java.
Java and Erlang are different beasts. I don't recommend trying to make comparisons to Java when learning Erlang, especially if Java is the only language you know so far. The code you've posted is a good example of the paradigm known as "functional programming". I'd suggest doing some reading on that subject to help you understand what's going on. To try to break this down as far as Erlang goes, you need to understand that an Erlang function is completely different from a Java method.
In Java, your method signature is composed of the method name and the types of its arguments. The return type can also be significant. A Java increment method like the function you wrote might be written like List<Integer> increment(List<Integer> input). The body of the Java method would probably iterate through the list an element at a time and set each element to itself plus one:
List<Integer> increment(List<Integer> input) {
for (int i = 0; i < input.size; i++) {
input.set(i, input.get(i) + 1);
}
}
Erlang has almost nothing in common with this. To begin with, an erlang function's "signature" is the name and arity of the function. Arity means how many arguments the function accepts. So your increment function is known as increment/1, and that's its unique signature. The way you write the argument list inside the parentheses after the function name has less to do with argument types than with the pattern of the data passed to it. A function like increment([]) -> ... can only successfully be called by passing it [], the empty list. Likewise, the function increment([Item]) -> ... can only be successfully called by passing it a list with one item in it, and increment([Item1, Item2]) -> ... must be passed a list with two items in it. This concept of matching data to patterns is quite aptly known as "pattern matching", and you'll find it in many functional languages. In Erlang functions, it's used to select which head of the function to execute. This bears a rough similarity to Java's method overloading, where you can have many methods with the same name but different argument types; however a pattern in an Erlang function head can bind variables to different pieces of the arguments that match the pattern.
In your code example, the function increment/1 has two heads. The first head is executed only if you pass an empty list to the function. The second head is executed only if you pass a non-empty list to the function. When that happens, two variables, H and T, are bound. H is bound to the first item of the list, and T is bound to the rest of the list, meaning all but the first item. That's because the pattern [H|T] matches a non-empty list, including a list with one element, in which case T would be bound to the empty list. The variables thus bound can be used in the body of the function.
The bodies of your functions are a very typical form of iterating a list in Erlang to produce a new list. It's typical because of another important difference from Java, which is that Erlang data is immutable. That means there's no such concept as "setting an element of a list" like I did in the Java code above. If you want to change a list, you have to build a new one, which is what your code does. It effectively says:
The result of incrementing the empty list is the empty list.
The result of incrementing a non-empty list is:
Take the first element of the list: H.
Increment the rest of the list: increment(T).
Prepend H+1 to the result of incrementing the rest of the list.
Note that you want to be careful about how you build lists in Erlang, or you can end up wasting a lot of resources. The List Handling User's Guide is a good place to learn about that. Also note that this code uses a concept known as "recursion", meaning that the function calls itself. In many popular languages, including Java, recursion is of limited usefulness because each new function call adds a stack frame, and your available memory space for stack frames is relatively limited. Erlang and many functional languages support a thing known as "tail call elimination", which is a feature that allows properly written code to recurse indefinitely without exhausting any resources.
Hopefully this helps explain things. If you can ask a more specific question, you might get a better answer.
I come from the strongly typed world and I want to write some Lua code. How should I document what type things are? What do Lua natives do? Hungarian notation? Something else?
For example:
local insert = function(what, where, offset)
It's impossible to tell at a glance whether we're talking about strings or tables here.
Should I do
local sInsert = function(sWhat, sWhere, nOffset)
or
-- string what, string where, number offset, return string
local insert = function(what, where, offset)
or something else?
What about local variables? What about table entries (e.g. someThing.someProperty)?
For a reference on thoughts and opinions on Lua style in the community (or a particular community?), read this: LuaStyleGuide.
The closest one could get to an enforced style would be the format used by LuaDoc, as it's a fairly popular documentation generator used by high profile projects such as LuaFileSystem.
There are only seven types in Lua.
Here are some conventions (some of them might sound a bit obvious; sorry):
Anything that sounds like a string, should be a string: street_address, request_method. If you are not sure you can add _name (or any other suffix that makes clear it's a substantive) to it: method_name
Anything that sounds like a number, should be a number: mass, temperature, percentage. When in doubt, add number, amount, coefficient, or whatever fits : number_of_children, user_id. The names n and i are usually given to numbers. If a number must be positive or natural, make assertions at the top of the function.
Boolean parameters are either an adjective (cold, dirty) or is_<adjective> (is_wet, is_ready).
Anything that sounds like a verb should be a function: consume, check. You can add _function, _callback or _f if you need to clarify it further: update_function, post_callback. The single letter f represents a function quite often. And usually you should only have one parameter of type function (recommended to put it at the end)
Anything that sounds like a collection should be a table: children, words, dictionary. People typically don't differentiate between array-like tables and dictionary-like tables, since both can be parsed with pairs. If you need to specify that a table is an array, you could add _array or _sequence at the end of the name. The letter t typically means table.
Coroutines are not used quite often; you can follow the same rules as with functions, and you can also add _cor to their names.
Any value can be nil.
If it's an optional value, initialize it at the top of the function: options = options or {}
If it's a mandatory value, make an assertion (or return error): assert(name, "The name is mandatory")
I'm learning Elixir and wonder why it has two types of function definitions:
functions defined in a module with def, called using myfunction(param1, param2)
anonymous functions defined with fn, called using myfn.(param1, param2)
Only the second kind of function seems to be a first-class object and can be passed as a parameter to other functions. A function defined in a module needs to be wrapped in a fn. There's some syntactic sugar which looks like otherfunction(&myfunction(&1, &2)) in order to make that easy, but why is it necessary in the first place? Why can't we just do otherfunction(myfunction))? Is it only to allow calling module functions without parenthesis like in Ruby? It seems to have inherited this characteristic from Erlang which also has module functions and funs, so does it actually comes from how the Erlang VM works internally?
It there any benefit having two types of functions and converting from one type to another in order to pass them to other functions? Is there a benefit having two different notations to call functions?
Just to clarify the naming, they are both functions. One is a named function and the other is an anonymous one. But you are right, they work somewhat differently and I am going to illustrate why they work like that.
Let's start with the second, fn. fn is a closure, similar to a lambda in Ruby. We can create it as follows:
x = 1
fun = fn y -> x + y end
fun.(2) #=> 3
A function can have multiple clauses too:
x = 1
fun = fn
y when y < 0 -> x - y
y -> x + y
end
fun.(2) #=> 3
fun.(-2) #=> 3
Now, let's try something different. Let's try to define different clauses expecting a different number of arguments:
fn
x, y -> x + y
x -> x
end
** (SyntaxError) cannot mix clauses with different arities in function definition
Oh no! We get an error! We cannot mix clauses that expect a different number of arguments. A function always has a fixed arity.
Now, let's talk about the named functions:
def hello(x, y) do
x + y
end
As expected, they have a name and they can also receive some arguments. However, they are not closures:
x = 1
def hello(y) do
x + y
end
This code will fail to compile because every time you see a def, you get an empty variable scope. That is an important difference between them. I particularly like the fact that each named function starts with a clean slate and you don't get the variables of different scopes all mixed up together. You have a clear boundary.
We could retrieve the named hello function above as an anonymous function. You mentioned it yourself:
other_function(&hello(&1))
And then you asked, why I cannot simply pass it as hello as in other languages? That's because functions in Elixir are identified by name and arity. So a function that expects two arguments is a different function than one that expects three, even if they had the same name. So if we simply passed hello, we would have no idea which hello you actually meant. The one with two, three or four arguments? This is exactly the same reason why we can't create an anonymous function with clauses with different arities.
Since Elixir v0.10.1, we have a syntax to capture named functions:
&hello/1
That will capture the local named function hello with arity 1. Throughout the language and its documentation, it is very common to identify functions in this hello/1 syntax.
This is also why Elixir uses a dot for calling anonymous functions. Since you can't simply pass hello around as a function, instead you need to explicitly capture it, there is a natural distinction between named and anonymous functions and a distinct syntax for calling each makes everything a bit more explicit (Lispers would be familiar with this due to the Lisp 1 vs. Lisp 2 discussion).
Overall, those are the reasons why we have two functions and why they behave differently.
I don't know how useful this will be to anyone else, but the way I finally wrapped my head around the concept was to realize that elixir functions aren't Functions.
Everything in elixir is an expression. So
MyModule.my_function(foo)
is not a function but the expression returned by executing the code in my_function. There is actually only one way to get a "Function" that you can pass around as an argument and that is to use the anonymous function notation.
It is tempting to refer to the fn or & notation as a function pointer, but it is actually much more. It's a closure of the surrounding environment.
If you ask yourself:
Do I need an execution environment or a data value in this spot?
And if you need execution use fn, then most of the difficulties become much
clearer.
I may be wrong since nobody mentioned it, but I was also under the impression that the reason for this is also the ruby heritage of being able to call functions without brackets.
Arity is obviously involved but lets put it aside for a while and use functions without arguments. In a language like javascript where brackets are mandatory, it is easy to make the difference between passing a function as an argument and calling the function. You call it only when you use the brackets.
my_function // argument
(function() {}) // argument
my_function() // function is called
(function() {})() // function is called
As you can see, naming it or not does not make a big difference. But elixir and ruby allow you to call functions without the brackets. This is a design choice which I personally like but it has this side effect you cannot use just the name without the brackets because it could mean you want to call the function. This is what the & is for. If you leave arity appart for a second, prepending your function name with & means that you explicitly want to use this function as an argument, not what this function returns.
Now the anonymous function is bit different in that it is mainly used as an argument. Again this is a design choice but the rational behind it is that it is mainly used by iterators kind of functions which take functions as arguments. So obviously you don't need to use & because they are already considered arguments by default. It is their purpose.
Now the last problem is that sometimes you have to call them in your code, because they are not always used with an iterator kind of function, or you might be coding an iterator yourself. For the little story, since ruby is object oriented, the main way to do it was to use the call method on the object. That way, you could keep the non-mandatory brackets behaviour consistent.
my_lambda.call
my_lambda.call()
my_lambda_with_arguments.call :h2g2, 42
my_lambda_with_arguments.call(:h2g2, 42)
Now somebody came up with a shortcut which basically looks like a method with no name.
my_lambda.()
my_lambda_with_arguments.(:h2g2, 42)
Again, this is a design choice. Now elixir is not object oriented and therefore call not use the first form for sure. I can't speak for José but it looks like the second form was used in elixir because it still looks like a function call with an extra character. It's close enough to a function call.
I did not think about all the pros and cons, but it looks like in both languages you could get away with just the brackets as long as you make brackets mandatory for anonymous functions. It seems like it is:
Mandatory brackets VS Slightly different notation
In both cases you make an exception because you make both behave differently. Since there is a difference, you might as well make it obvious and go for the different notation. The mandatory brackets would look natural in most cases but very confusing when things don't go as planned.
Here you go. Now this might not be the best explanation in the world because I simplified most of the details. Also most of it are design choices and I tried to give a reason for them without judging them. I love elixir, I love ruby, I like the function calls without brackets, but like you, I find the consequences quite misguiding once in a while.
And in elixir, it is just this extra dot, whereas in ruby you have blocks on top of this. Blocks are amazing and I am surprised how much you can do with just blocks, but they only work when you need just one anonymous function which is the last argument. Then since you should be able to deal with other scenarios, here comes the whole method/lambda/proc/block confusion.
Anyway... this is out of scope.
I've never understood why explanations of this are so complicated.
It's really just an exceptionally small distinction combined with the realities of Ruby-style "function execution without parens".
Compare:
def fun1(x, y) do
x + y
end
To:
fun2 = fn
x, y -> x + y
end
While both of these are just identifiers...
fun1 is an identifier that describes a named function defined with def.
fun2 is an identifier that describes a variable (that happens to contain a reference to function).
Consider what that means when you see fun1 or fun2 in some other expression? When evaluating that expression, do you call the referenced function or do you just reference a value out of memory?
There's no good way to know at compile time. Ruby has the luxury of introspecting the variable namespace to find out if a variable binding has shadowed a function at some point in time. Elixir, being compiled, can't really do this. That's what the dot-notation does, it tells Elixir that it should contain a function reference and that it should be called.
And this is really hard. Imagine that there wasn't a dot notation. Consider this code:
val = 5
if :rand.uniform < 0.5 do
val = fn -> 5 end
end
IO.puts val # Does this work?
IO.puts val.() # Or maybe this?
Given the above code, I think it's pretty clear why you have to give Elixir the hint. Imagine if every variable de-reference had to check for a function? Alternatively, imagine what heroics would be necessary to always infer that variable dereference was using a function?
There's an excellent blog post about this behavior: link
Two types of functions
If a module contains this:
fac(0) when N > 0 -> 1;
fac(N) -> N* fac(N-1).
You can’t just cut and paste this into the shell and get the same
result.
It’s because there is a bug in Erlang. Modules in Erlang are sequences
of FORMS. The Erlang shell evaluates a sequence of
EXPRESSIONS. In Erlang FORMS are not EXPRESSIONS.
double(X) -> 2*X. in an Erlang module is a FORM
Double = fun(X) -> 2*X end. in the shell is an EXPRESSION
The two are not the same. This bit of silliness has been Erlang
forever but we didn’t notice it and we learned to live with it.
Dot in calling fn
iex> f = fn(x) -> 2 * x end
#Function<erl_eval.6.17052888>
iex> f.(10)
20
In school I learned to call functions by writing f(10) not f.(10) -
this is “really” a function with a name like Shell.f(10) (it’s a
function defined in the shell) The shell part is implicit so it should
just be called f(10).
If you leave it like this expect to spend the next twenty years of
your life explaining why.
Elixir has optional braces for functions, including functions with 0 arity. Let's see an example of why it makes a separate calling syntax important:
defmodule Insanity do
def dive(), do: fn() -> 1 end
end
Insanity.dive
# #Function<0.16121902/0 in Insanity.dive/0>
Insanity.dive()
# #Function<0.16121902/0 in Insanity.dive/0>
Insanity.dive.()
# 1
Insanity.dive().()
# 1
Without making a difference between 2 types of functions, we can't say what Insanity.dive means: getting a function itself, calling it, or also calling the resulting anonymous function.
fn -> syntax is for using anonymous functions. Doing var.() is just telling elixir that I want you to take that var with a func in it and run it instead of referring to the var as something just holding that function.
Elixir has a this common pattern where instead of having logic inside of a function to see how something should execute, we pattern match different functions based on what kind of input we have. I assume this is why we refer to things by arity in the function_name/1 sense.
It's kind of weird to get used to doing shorthand function definitions (func(&1), etc), but handy when you're trying to pipe or keep your code concise.
In elixir we use def for simply define a function like we do in other languages.
fn creates an anonymous function refer to this for more clarification
Only the second kind of function seems to be a first-class object and can be passed as a parameter to other functions. A function defined in a module needs to be wrapped in a fn. There's some syntactic sugar which looks like otherfunction(myfunction(&1, &2)) in order to make that easy, but why is it necessary in the first place? Why can't we just do otherfunction(myfunction))?
You can do otherfunction(&myfunction/2)
Since elixir can execute functions without the brackets (like myfunction), using otherfunction(myfunction)) it will try to execute myfunction/0.
So, you need to use the capture operator and specify the function, including arity, since you can have different functions with the same name. Thus, &myfunction/2.