I see this type of syntax a lot in some Lua source file I was reading lately, what does it mean, especially the second pair of brackets
An example, line 8 in
https://github.com/karpathy/char-rnn/blob/master/model/LSTM.lua
local LSTM = {}
function LSTM.lstm(input_size, rnn_size, n, dropout)
dropout = dropout or 0
-- there will be 2*n+1 inputs
local inputs = {}
table.insert(inputs, nn.Identity()()) -- line 8
-- ...
The source code of nn.Identity
https://github.com/torch/nn/blob/master/Identity.lua
********** UPDATE **************
The ()() pattern is used in torch library 'nn' a lot. The first pair of bracket creates an object of the container/node, and the second pair of bracket references the depending node.
For example, y = nn.Linear(2,4)(x) means x connects to y, and the transformation is linear from 1*2 to 1*4.
I just understand the usage, how it is wired seems to be answered by one of the answers below.
Anyway, the usage of the interface is well documented below.
https://github.com/torch/nngraph/blob/master/README.md
No, ()() has no special meaning in Lua, it's just two call operators () together.
The operand is possibly a function that returns a function(or, a table that implements call metamethod). For example:
function foo()
return function() print(42) end
end
foo()() -- 42
In complement to Yu Hao's answer let me give some Torch related precisions:
nn.Identity() creates an identity module,
() called on this module triggers nn.Module __call__ (thanks to Torch class system that properly hooks up this into the metatable),
by default this __call__ method performs a forward / backward,
but here torch/nngraph is used and nngraph overrides this method as you can see here.
In consequence every nn.Identity()() calls has here for effect to return a nngraph.Node({module=self}) node where self refers to the current nn.Identity() instance.
--
Update: an illustration of this syntax in the context of LSTM-s can be found here:
local i2h = nn.Linear(input_size, 4 * rnn_size)(input) -- input to hidden
If you’re unfamiliar with nngraph it probably seems strange that we’re constructing a module and already calling it once more with a graph node. What actually happens is that the second call converts the nn.Module to nngraph.gModule and the argument specifies it’s parent in the graph.
The first () calls the init function and the second () calls the call function
If the class doesn't posses either of these functions then the parent functions are called .
In the case of nn.Identity()() the nn.Identity has neither init function nor a call function hence the Identity parent nn.Module's init and call functions called .Attaching an illustration
require 'torch'
-- define some dummy A class
local A = torch.class('A')
function A:__init(stuff)
self.stuff = stuff
print('inside __init of A')
end
function A:__call__(arg1)
print('inside __call__ of A')
end
-- define some dummy B class, inheriting from A
local B,parent = torch.class('B', 'A')
function B:__init(stuff)
self.stuff = stuff
print('inside __init of B')
end
function B:__call__(arg1)
print('inside __call__ of B')
end
a=A()()
b=B()()
Output
inside __init of A
inside __call__ of A
inside __init of B
inside __call__ of B
Another code sample
require 'torch'
-- define some dummy A class
local A = torch.class('A')
function A:__init(stuff)
self.stuff = stuff
print('inside __init of A')
end
function A:__call__(arg1)
print('inside __call__ of A')
end
-- define some dummy B class, inheriting from A
local B,parent = torch.class('B', 'A')
b=B()()
Output
inside __init of A
inside __call__ of A
Related
Lua will write the code of a function out as bytes using string.dump, but warns that this does not work if there are any upvalues. Various snippets online describe hacking around this with debug. It looks like 'closed over variables' are called 'upvalues', which seems clear enough. Code is not data etc.
I'd like to serialise functions and don't need them to have any upvalues. The serialised function can take a table as an argument that gets serialised separately.
How do I detect attempts to pass closures to string.dump, before calling the broken result later?
Current thought is debug.getupvalue at index 1 and treat nil as meaning function, as opposed to closure, but I'd rather not call into the debug interface if there's an alternative.
Thanks!
Even with debug library it's very difficult to say whether a function has a non-trivial upvalue.
"Non-trivial" means "upvalue except _ENV".
When debug info is stripped from your program, all upvalues look almost the same :-)
local function test()
local function f1()
-- usual function without upvalues (except _ENV for accessing globals)
print("Hello")
end
local upv = {}
local function f2()
-- this function does have an upvalue
upv[#upv+1] = ""
end
-- display first upvalues
print(debug.getupvalue (f1, 1))
print(debug.getupvalue (f2, 1))
end
test()
local test_stripped = load(string.dump(test, true))
test_stripped()
Output:
_ENV table: 00000242bf521a80 -- test f1
upv table: 00000242bf529490 -- test f2
(no name) table: 00000242bf521a80 -- test_stripped f1
(no name) table: 00000242bf528e90 -- test_stripped f2
The first two lines of the output are printed by test(), the last two lines by test_stripped().
As you see, inside test_stripped functions f1 and f2 are almost undistinguishable.
I'm looking at some lua code on github which consists of many folders and files. Next to external libraries, each file starts with:
local _,x = ...
Now my question is, what is the purpose of this, namely the 3 dots? is it a way to 'import' the global values of x? In what way is it best used?
... is the variable arguments to the current function.
E.g.:
function test(x, y, ...)
print("x is",x)
print("y is",y)
print("... is", ...)
local a,b,c,d = ...
print("b is",b)
print("c is",c)
end
test(1,2,"oat","meal")
prints:
x is 1
y is 2
... is oat meal
b is meal
c is nil
Files are also treated as functions. In Lua, when you, or someone else, loads a file (with load or loadfile or whatever), it returns a function, and then to run the code, you call the function. And when you call the function, you can pass arguments. And none of the arguments have names, but the file can read them with ...
They are arguments from the command line.
Read lua's reference manual, in the chapter Lua Standalone, it says:
...If there is a script, the script is called with arguments arg[1], ···, arg[#arg]. Like all chunks in Lua, the script is compiled as a vararg function.
For example if your lua script is run with the command line:
lua my_script.lua 10 20
In my_script.lua you have:
local _, x = ...
Then _ = "10" and x = "20"
Update when a library script is required by another script, the meaning of the 3 dots changes, they are arguments passed from the require function to the searcher:
Once a loader is found, require calls the loader with two arguments: modname and an extra value, a loader data, also returned by the searcher.
And under package.searchers:
All searchers except the first one (preload) return as the extra value the file name where the module was found
For example if you have a lua file that requires my_script.lua.
require('my_script')
At this time _ = "my_script" and x = "/full/path/to/my_script.lua"
Note that in lua 5.1, require passes only 1 argument to the loader, so x is nil.
I'm reviewing some toy examples from Lua and I found the following one over there with respect to environments:
M = {} -- the module
complex = {} -- global complex numbers registry
mt = {} --metatable for complex numbers
function new (r, i)
local cp = {}
cp = {r=r, i=i}
return setmetatable(cp,mt)
end
M.new = new -- add 'new' to the module
function M.op (...)
--Why does not it work?
local _ENV = complex
return ...
end
function M.add (c1, c2)
return new(c1.r + c2.r, c1.i + c2.i)
end
function M.tostring (c)
return string.format("(%g,%g)", c.r, c.i) --to avoid +-
end
mt.__tostring = M.tostring
mt.__add = M.add
complex.a = M.new(4,3)
complex.b = N.new(6,2)
--nil
M.op(a+b)
--It works
M,op(complex.a+complex.b)
The use of _ENV has no effect. However, if I use complex = _G, both lines work. How do set a local environment for M.op. I'm not asking for specific libraries, I just want to know why it does not work and how to fix it.
M.op(a+b)
This line doesn't do what you expect, because it uses values of a and b that are available when this method is called. It doesn't matter that you set _ENV value inside the method, as by the time the control gets there, the values referenced by a and b have already been retrieved and since both values are nil in your code, you probably get "attempt to perform arithmetic on global..." error.
how to fix it.
I'm not sure what exactly you want to fix, as you already reference the example that works. If you assign complex.a you can't assume that a will have the same value without mapping complex table to _ENV.
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.