Related
In my Lua script I'm trying to create a function with a variable number of arguments. As far as I know it should work like below, but somehow I get an error with Lua 5.1 on the TI-NSpire (global arg is nil). What am I doing wrong? Thanks!
function equation:init(...)
self.equation = arg[1]
self.answers = {}
self.pipe = {arg[1]}
self.selected = 1
-- Loop arguments to add answers.
for i = 2, #arg do
table.insert(self.answers, arg[i])
end
end
instance = equation({"x^2+8=12", -4, 4})
Luis's answer is right, if terser than a beginner to the language might hope for. I'll try to elaborate on it a bit, hopefully without creating additional confusion.
Your question is in the context of Lua embedded in a specific model of TI calculator. So there will be details that differ from standalone Lua, but mostly those details will relate to what libraries and functions are made available in your environment. It is unusual (although since Lua is open source, possible) for embedded versions of Lua to differ significantly from the standalone Lua distributed by its authors. (The Lua Binaries is a repository of binaries for many platforms. Lua for Windows is a batteries-included complete distribution for Windows.)
Your sample code has a confounding factor the detail that it needs to interface with a class system provided by the calculator framework. That detail mostly appears as an absence of connection between your equation object and the equation:init() function being called. Since there are techniques that can glue that up, it is just a distraction.
Your question as I understand it boils down to a confusion about how variadic functions (functions with a variable number of arguments) are declared and implemented in Lua. From your comment on Luis's answer, you have been reading the online edition of Programming in Lua (aka PiL). You cited section 5.2. PiL is a good source for background on the language. Unfortunately, variadic functions are one of the features that has been in flux. The edition of the book on line is correct as of Lua version 5.0, but the TI calculator is probably running Lua 5.1.4.
In Lua 5, a variadic function is declared with a parameter list that ends with the symbol ... which stands for the rest of the arguments. In Lua 5.0, the call was implemented with a "magic" local variable named arg which contained a table containing the arguments matching the .... This required that every variadic function create a table when called, which is a source of unnecessary overhead and pressure on the garbage collector. So in Lua 5.1, the implementation was changed: the ... can be used directly in the called function as an alias to the matching arguments, but no table is actually created. Instead, if the count of arguments is needed, you write select("#",...), and if the value of the nth argument is desired you write select(n,...).
A confounding factor in your example comes back to the class system. You want to declare the function equation:init(...). Since this declaration uses the colon syntax, it is equivalent to writing equation.init(self,...). So, when called eventually via the class framework's use of the __call metamethod, the real first argument is named self and the zero or more actual arguments will match the ....
As noted by Amr's comment below, the expression select(n,...) actually returns all the values from the nth argument on, which is particularly useful in this case for constructing self.answers, but also leads to a possible bug in the initialization of self.pipe.
Here is my revised approximation of what you are trying to achieve in your definition of equation:init(), but do note that I don't have one of the TI calculators at hand and this is untested:
function equation:init(...)
self.equation = select(1, ...)
self.pipe = { (select(1,...)) }
self.selected = 1
self.answers = { select(2,...) }
end
In the revised version shown above I have written {(select(1,...))} to create a table containing exactly one element which is the first argument, and {select(2,...)} to create a table containing all the remaining arguments. While there is a limit to the number of values that can be inserted into a table in that way, that limit is related to the number of return values of a function or the number of parameters that can be passed to a function and so cannot be exceeded by the reference to .... Note that this might not be the case in general, and writing { unpack(t) } can result in not copying all of the array part of t.
A slightly less efficient way to write the function would be to write a loop over the passed arguments, which is the version in my original answer. That would look like the following:
function equation:init(...)
self.equation = select(1, ...)
self.pipe = {(select(1,...))}
self.selected = 1
-- Loop arguments to add answers.
local t = {}
for i = 2, select("#",...) do
t[#t+1] = select(i,...)
end
self.answers = t
end
Try
function equation:init(...)
local arg={...}
--- original code here
end
In Programming in Lua (3rd Ed.) by Roberto Ierusalimschy it is stated that
A common idiom in Lua is
local foo = foo
This code creates a local
variable, foo, and initializes it with the value of the global
variable foo. (The local foo becomes visible only after its
declaration.) This idiom is useful when the chunk needs to preserve
the original value of foo even if later some other function changes
the value of the global foo; it also speeds up the access to foo.
Could someone explain this more in detail and provide a simple example?
At the moment, the only use I can think of for this idiom is to manage local variables (in a given block) that have the same names as global variables, so that the global variable is left unchanged after the block.
An example:
foo = 10
do
local foo = foo
foo = math.log10(foo)
print(foo)
end
print(foo)
this gives:
1
10
But the same could be accomplished without using the idiom at all:
bar = 10
do
local bar = math.log10(bar)
print(bar)
end
print(bar)
that gives the same result. So my explanation doesn't seem to hold.
I've seen this used more often as a optimization technique than as a way to preserve original values. With the standard Lua interpreter, every global variable access and module access requires a table lookup. Local variables, on the other hand, have statically-known locations at bytecode-compile time and can be placed in VM registers.
In more depth: Why are local variables accessed faster than global variables in lua?
The explanation is correct; I'm not sure why you are not satisfied with your example. To give you a real example:
local setfenv = setfenv
if not setfenv then -- Lua 5.2+
setfenv = function() ..... end
end
Another reason is to preserve the value as it is at this moment, so that other functions that use that value (in a file or a module) would have the same expectations about that value.
Wrapping a global:
do
local setmetatable = setmetatable
function _ENV.setmetatable(...)
-- Do your thing
return setmetatable(...)
end
end
Reducing overhead by using a local instead of doing a lookup in the globals-table (which is a local btw.):
local type = type
for k, v in next, bigtable do
if type(v) == "string" then
-- Do one thing
else
-- Do other thing
end
end
I think you're splitting hairs, unintentionally.
local bar = math.log10(bar)
is essentially the same as local bar = bar in spirit, but we it would be less useful to claim that the idiom is local bar = a(bar), because we may want to handle the local in some way other than passing it to a function first -- e.g. appending it to something.
This point is that we want to refer to the local bar, just as you say, not exactly how the conversion from global to local is done.
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.
In my Lua script I'm trying to create a function with a variable number of arguments. As far as I know it should work like below, but somehow I get an error with Lua 5.1 on the TI-NSpire (global arg is nil). What am I doing wrong? Thanks!
function equation:init(...)
self.equation = arg[1]
self.answers = {}
self.pipe = {arg[1]}
self.selected = 1
-- Loop arguments to add answers.
for i = 2, #arg do
table.insert(self.answers, arg[i])
end
end
instance = equation({"x^2+8=12", -4, 4})
Luis's answer is right, if terser than a beginner to the language might hope for. I'll try to elaborate on it a bit, hopefully without creating additional confusion.
Your question is in the context of Lua embedded in a specific model of TI calculator. So there will be details that differ from standalone Lua, but mostly those details will relate to what libraries and functions are made available in your environment. It is unusual (although since Lua is open source, possible) for embedded versions of Lua to differ significantly from the standalone Lua distributed by its authors. (The Lua Binaries is a repository of binaries for many platforms. Lua for Windows is a batteries-included complete distribution for Windows.)
Your sample code has a confounding factor the detail that it needs to interface with a class system provided by the calculator framework. That detail mostly appears as an absence of connection between your equation object and the equation:init() function being called. Since there are techniques that can glue that up, it is just a distraction.
Your question as I understand it boils down to a confusion about how variadic functions (functions with a variable number of arguments) are declared and implemented in Lua. From your comment on Luis's answer, you have been reading the online edition of Programming in Lua (aka PiL). You cited section 5.2. PiL is a good source for background on the language. Unfortunately, variadic functions are one of the features that has been in flux. The edition of the book on line is correct as of Lua version 5.0, but the TI calculator is probably running Lua 5.1.4.
In Lua 5, a variadic function is declared with a parameter list that ends with the symbol ... which stands for the rest of the arguments. In Lua 5.0, the call was implemented with a "magic" local variable named arg which contained a table containing the arguments matching the .... This required that every variadic function create a table when called, which is a source of unnecessary overhead and pressure on the garbage collector. So in Lua 5.1, the implementation was changed: the ... can be used directly in the called function as an alias to the matching arguments, but no table is actually created. Instead, if the count of arguments is needed, you write select("#",...), and if the value of the nth argument is desired you write select(n,...).
A confounding factor in your example comes back to the class system. You want to declare the function equation:init(...). Since this declaration uses the colon syntax, it is equivalent to writing equation.init(self,...). So, when called eventually via the class framework's use of the __call metamethod, the real first argument is named self and the zero or more actual arguments will match the ....
As noted by Amr's comment below, the expression select(n,...) actually returns all the values from the nth argument on, which is particularly useful in this case for constructing self.answers, but also leads to a possible bug in the initialization of self.pipe.
Here is my revised approximation of what you are trying to achieve in your definition of equation:init(), but do note that I don't have one of the TI calculators at hand and this is untested:
function equation:init(...)
self.equation = select(1, ...)
self.pipe = { (select(1,...)) }
self.selected = 1
self.answers = { select(2,...) }
end
In the revised version shown above I have written {(select(1,...))} to create a table containing exactly one element which is the first argument, and {select(2,...)} to create a table containing all the remaining arguments. While there is a limit to the number of values that can be inserted into a table in that way, that limit is related to the number of return values of a function or the number of parameters that can be passed to a function and so cannot be exceeded by the reference to .... Note that this might not be the case in general, and writing { unpack(t) } can result in not copying all of the array part of t.
A slightly less efficient way to write the function would be to write a loop over the passed arguments, which is the version in my original answer. That would look like the following:
function equation:init(...)
self.equation = select(1, ...)
self.pipe = {(select(1,...))}
self.selected = 1
-- Loop arguments to add answers.
local t = {}
for i = 2, select("#",...) do
t[#t+1] = select(i,...)
end
self.answers = t
end
Try
function equation:init(...)
local arg={...}
--- original code here
end
We (two people) are doing a project using Lua as an embedded language.
My teammate uses argument type checks almost everywhere:
function someFunction( a, b,c )
if a == nil then return end
--Some stuff here
if type( b ) ~= "function" then
Error( "blah" )
end
--More here
if someTable[ c ] == nil then someTable[ c ] = {}
end
I don't really like that as I think that most of those checks are unneccessary.. it kind of takes the "spirit" of using Lua. It also makes the code longer, slower and less readable in my opinion.
In general I would do it this way:
function someFunction( a, b,c )
--More here
if someTable[ c ] == nil then someTable[ c ] = {}
end
I leave out almost all type/argument checks and only do those who have a high chance of actually happening.
Now we are unsure of what solution is better and decided to ask you: Security checks in Lua - yes or no?
I'm not familiar with Lua, but Wikipedia seems to think it is duck-typed. I'm going to draw an analogy with Python, so forgive me if it's not appropriate.
In Python, functions are designed with the principle that they need an object that meets certain criteria. If you pass in a different object than what the original author intended, as long as it meets the criteria of the function, it should work. The idea being, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck." (Hence the name.) That said, there are a few rare instances where you need an object of a specific type, but this is not the general case.
At any rate, you appear to be "fighting the language", which is a code smell in my book. Most languages are designed and intended to be used in certain ways - figure out what principles and design/coding guidelines the Lua community uses, and follow those.
I type check public functions in my api. But do not for only internally used functions.
Good type checking:
function ( a , b )
assert ( type ( a ) == "number" , "Invalid a" )
b = b or {}
assert ( type ( b ) == "table" , "B must be a table" )
c = assert ( type ( c ) == "string" ) and c or "default"
end
Keep in mind though, lua also has a bit of "duck" typing: if all that is required in an object is callable, then a table with a __call method should be allowable. Same for an indexable object: a table and a userdata can both be indexed (not to mention the other types).
I don't know Lua either, and it's a little unclear whether you're asking only about checking the argument types [type(b)~="function"] or do you want to check their values too [a==nil], but here's what I do:
If the function can only ever be called by some other functions of your own, and those other functions have already checked the argument, then there's no need to check it again. On the other hand, if your design doesn't guarantee the safety of your arguments then you do need to check it yourself.
Basically, what can go wrong will go wrong, but it will wait until after you've finished testing and have shipped. You can't take chances - you do need a cast-iron guarantee. The key to choosing your guarantee is to inspect your design and see what you really need.
(Even if the function is only called by your own other functions, you might still want to include checks if you think you might later forget about all this and call it from somewhere else without checking.)
I guess it depends on what you plan to do next: if other people should actually write Lua code to work with your code, it would be useful to check arguments (or make it possible by having something like enableDebug). Something useful I came along yesterday is DecoratorsAndDocstrings which makes it possible to document/typecheck functions without altering the implementation.
Another idiom used for this purpose is :
argument = argument or default -- or
argument = type(argument)=="number" and argument or error'I should get a number'
Now we are unsure of what solution is better and decided to ask you: Security checks in Lua - yes or no?
It depends on the type of the project. If your project is small - i.e. only you and your teammate are going to manage it - it is OK to skip the checks, because you should know that you are passing to functions, and it will make the code small and readable. The downside is that when error occurs - and it may happen somewhere totally unexpected - you'll have to spend time debugging and tracing your functions.
On the other hand, if you are creating an library/API to be used by others, it is very appropriate to do type checking. For the user of your library who doesn't know of the internals, it is very helpful to know when he is passing the wrong arguments.
You need to check types where it is important (and should not check where it is not important). Usually I type-check most of the public function arguments plus I add a check anywhere I encounter a type error when debugging.
To shorten the type checks, I use a small arguments() helper function:
https://github.com/lua-nucleo/lua-nucleo/blob/master/lua-nucleo/args.lua
Example:
https://github.com/lua-aplicado/lua-aplicado/blob/master/lua-aplicado/filesystem.lua#L63-66
local write_file = function(filename, new_data)
arguments(
"string", filename,
"string", new_data
)
local file, err = io.open(filename, "w")
if not file then
return nil, err
end
file:write(new_data)
file:close()
file = nil
return true
end