This is my code
strcpy doesnt copy the yytext
Any suggestion why?
These are my globals
char** v; /* array of variables and their values */
int i;
some name definition
WORD [a-zA-Z]
DIGIT [0-9]
These are the states
<VAL>"\"".+"\"" {int x=sizeof(yytext);
v[i]=(char*)realloc(v, x*sizeof(char));
strcpy(v[i],yytext);
i++;
BEGIN(INITIAL);}
<VAL>. { i--;printf("error");}
<SAVE_VAL>{WORD}[{WORD}{DIGIT}_]* {
if (NULL==v){
v=(char**)realloc(v, 100*sizeof(char*));
i=0;
}
int x=sizeof(yytext);
v[i]=(char*)realloc(v, x+2);
strcpy(v[i],yytext);
i++;
BEGIN(VAL);
}
val" " {BEGIN(SAVE_VAL);}
This is the yywrap
int yywrap(void){
return 1;
}
This is the main
int main(void) {
yyin=fopen("input.txt","r");
yylex();
fclose(yyin);
This is the loop to print the strings
for (int j=0;j<100;j++){
if (NULL==v[j])
break;
printf("%s",v[j],i);
}
}
}
I'm tring to run it on
val a="asdasd";
I'm expecting it to print
a
asdasd
This:
int x=sizeof(yytext);
doesn't do what you think it does. yytext is of type char*; that is, it is a pointer to a character. That means that sizeof yytext is either 4 or 8, depending on whether you're compiling on a 32-bit or 64-bit platform. (Or some other pointer length if you have a really unusual architecture.)
It is not the length of the string starting at yytext. That would be the standard library function strlen(yytext).
However, you don't need to use that, either, because flex has helpfully assigned the length of the token to the global variable yyleng.
When you are allocating space for the copy, don't forget that in C strings are always NUL-terminated. That means that the allocation for a string must be (at least) one greater than the length of the string, which means you need yyleng + 1 bytes.
Related
I was writing a lexer file that matches simple custom delimited strings of the form xyz$this is stringxyz. This is nearly how I did it:
%{
char delim[16];
uint8_t dlen;
%}
%%
.*$ {
dlen = yyleng-1;
strncpy(delim, yytext, dlen);
BEGIN(STRING);
}
<STRING>. {
if(yyleng >= dlen) {
if(strncmp(delim, yytext[yyleng-dlen], dlen) == 0) {
BEGIN(INITIAL);
return STR;
}
}
yymore();
}
%%
Now I wanted to convert this to reentrant lexer. But I don't know how to make delim and dlen as local variables inside yylex apart from modifying generated lexer. Someone please help me how should I do this.
I don't recommend to store these in yyextra because, these variables need not persist across multiple calls to yylex. Hence I would prefer an answer that guides me towards declaring these as local variables.
In the (f)lex file, any indented lines between the %% and the first rule are copied verbatim into yylex() prior to the first statement, precisely to allow you to declare and initialize local variables.
This behaviour is guaranteed by the Posix specification; it is not a flex extension: (emphasis added)
Any such input (beginning with a <blank>or within "%{" and "%}" delimiter lines) appearing at the beginning of the Rules section before any rules are specified shall be written to lex.yy.c after the declarations of variables for the yylex() function and before the first line of code in yylex(). Thus, user variables local to yylex() can be declared here, as well as application code to execute upon entry to yylex().
A similar statement is in the Flex manual section 5.2, Format of the Rules Section
The strategy you propose will work, certainly, but it's not very efficient. You might want to consider using input() to read characters one at a time, although that's not terribly efficient either. In any event, delim is unnecessary:
%%
int dlen;
[^$\n]{1,16}\$ {
dlen = yyleng-1;
yymore();
BEGIN(STRING);
}
<STRING>. {
if(yyleng > dlen * 2) {
if(memcmp(yytext, yytext + yyleng - dlen, dlen) == 0) {
/* Remove the delimiter from the reported value of yytext. */
yytext += dlen + 1;
yyleng -= 2 * dlen + 1;
yytext[yyleng] = 0;
return STR;
}
}
yymore();
}
%%
I wanted to match for a string which starts with a '#', then matches everything until it matches the character that follows '#'. This can be achieved using capturing groups like this: #(.)[^(?1)]*(?1)(EDIT this regex is also erroneous). This matches #$foo$, does not match #%bar&, matches first 6 characters of #"foo"bar.
But since flex lex does not support capturing groups, what is the workaround here?
As you say, (f)lex does not support capturing groups, and it certainly doesn't support backreferences.
So there is no simple workaround, but there are workarounds. Here are a few possibilities:
You can read the input one character at a time using the input() function, until you find the matching character (but you have to create your own buffer to store the characters, because characters read by input() are not added to the current token). This is not the most efficient because reading one character at a time is a bit clunky, but it's the only interface that (f)lex offers. (The following snippet assumes you have some kind of expandable stringBuilder; if you are using C++, this would just be replaced with a std::string.)
#. { StringBuilder sb = string_builder_new();
int delim = yytext[1];
for (;;) {
int next = input();
if (next == delim) break;
if (next == EOF ) { /* Signal error */; break; }
string_builder_addchar(next);
}
yylval = string_builder_release();
return DELIMITED_STRING;
}
Even less efficiently, but perhaps more conveniently, you can get (f)lex to accumulate the characters in yytext using yymore(), matching one character at a time in a start condition:
%x DELIMITED
%%
int delim;
#. { delim = yytext[1]; BEGIN(DELIMITED); }
<DELIMITED>.|\n { if (yytext[0] == delim) {
yylval = strdup(yytext);
BEGIN(INITIAL);
return DELIMITED_STRING;
}
yymore();
}
<DELIMITED><<EOF>> { /* Signal unterminated string error */ }
The most efficient solution (in (f)lex) is to just write one rule for each possible delimiter. While that's a lot of rules, they could be easily generated with a small script in whatever scripting language you prefer. And, actually, there are not that many rules, particularly if you don't allow alphabetic and non-printing characters to be delimiters. This has the additional advantage that if you want Perl-like parenthetic delimiters (#(Hello) instead of #(Hello(), you can just modify the individual pattern to suit (as I've done below). [Note 1] Since all the actions are the same; it might be easier to use a macro for the action, making it easier to modify.
/* Ordinary punctuation */
#:[^:]*: { yylval = strndup(yytext + 2, yyleng - 3); return DELIMITED_STRING; }
#:[^:]*: { yylval = strndup(yytext + 2, yyleng - 3); return DELIMITED_STRING; }
#![^!]*! { yylval = strndup(yytext + 2, yyleng - 3); return DELIMITED_STRING; }
#\.[^.]*\. { yylval = strndup(yytext + 2, yyleng - 3); return DELIMITED_STRING; }
/* Matched pairs */
#<[^>]*> { yylval = strndup(yytext + 2, yyleng - 3); return DELIMITED_STRING; }
#\[[^]]*] { yylval = strndup(yytext + 2, yyleng - 3); return DELIMITED_STRING; }
/* Trap errors */
# { /* Report unmatched or invalid delimiter error */ }
If I were writing a script to generate these rules, I would use hexadecimal escapes for all the delimiter characters rather than trying to figure out which ones needed escapes.
Notes:
Perl requires nested balanced parentheses in constructs like that. But you can't do that with regular expressions; if you wanted to reproduce Perl behaviour, you'd need to use some variation on one of the other suggestions. I'll try to revisit this answer later to address that feature.
I am trying to understand how flex works under the hood.
In the following first example, it seems that main() calls yylex() only once, and yylex() generates all the tokens for the entire input.
In the second example, it seems that main() calls yylex() once per token generated, and yylex() generates a token per call.
Does each call to yylex() generate a token or all the tokens for the input?
Why is yylex() called different number of times in the two examples?
I heard that yylex() is like a coroutine, and each call to it will resume with the rest of the input left from last call and generate a token. In that sense, how does the first example calls yylex() just once and generate all the tokens in the input?
/* just like Unix wc */
%{
int chars = 0;
int words = 0;
int lines = 0;
%}
%%
[a-zA-Z]+ { words++; chars += strlen(yytext); }
\n { chars++; lines++; }
. { chars++; }
%%
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
yylex();
printf("%8d%8d%8d\n", lines, words, chars);
}
$ ./a.out
The boy stood on the burning deck
shelling peanuts by the peck
^D
2 12 63
$
and
/* recognize tokens for the calculator and print them out */
%{
enum yytokentype {
NUMBER = 258,
ADD = 259,
SUB = 260,
MUL = 261,
DIV = 262,
ABS = 263,
EOL = 264
};
int yylval;
%}
%%
"+" { return ADD; }
"-" { return SUB; }
"*" { return MUL; }
"/" { return DIV; }
"|" { return ABS; }
[0-9]+ { yylval = atoi(yytext); return NUMBER; }
\n { return EOL; }
[ \t] { /* ignore whitespace */ }
. { printf("Mystery character %c\n", *yytext); }
%%
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int tok;
while(tok = yylex()) {
printf("%d", tok);
if(tok == NUMBER) printf(" = %d\n", yylval);
else printf("\n");
}
}
$ ./a.out
a / 34 + |45
Mystery character a
262
258 = 34
259
263
258 = 45
264
^D
$
Flex doesn't decide when the scanner will return (except for the default EOF rule). The scanner which it builds performs lexical actions in a loop until some action returns. So it is entirely up to you how you want to structure your scanner.
However, the classic yyparse/yylex processing model consists of the parser calling yylex() every time it needs a new token. So it expects yylex() to return immediately once it finds a token.
In your first code example, there is no parser and the scanner action is limited to printing out the token. While the example is perfectly correct, relying on the scanner loop to repeatedly execute actions, I'd prefer the second model even if you don't (yet) intend to add a parser, because it will make it easier to decouple token handling from token generation.
That doesn't mean that every lexical action will contain a return statement, though. Some lexical patterns correspond to non-tokens (comments and whitespace, for example), and the corresponding action will most likely do nothing (other than possibly recording input position) so that the scanner will continue to search fir a token to return.
(F)lex scanners are not easy to make into coroutines, so if a coroutine is really required (for example, to incrementally parse a asynchronous input), then another tool might be preferred.
Bison does offer the possiblity to generate a "push parser" in which the scanner calls the parser every time it finds a token, rather than returning to the parser. But neither the "push" nor the traditional "pull" model have anything to do with coroutines, IMHO, and the use of the word to describe parser/scanner interaction strikes me as imprecise and unuseful (although I have a lot of respect for the author you might be quoting.)
I've been trying to implement a BASIC language interpreter (in C/C++) but I haven't found any book or (thorough) article which explains the process of parsing the language constructs. Some commands are rather complex and hard to parse, especially conditionals and loops, such as IF-THEN-ELSE and FOR-STEP-NEXT, because they can mix variables with constants and entire expressions and code and everything else, for example:
10 IF X = Y + Z THEN GOTO 20 ELSE GOSUB P
20 FOR A = 10 TO B STEP -C : PRINT C$ : PRINT WHATEVER
30 NEXT A
It seems like a nightmare to be able to parse something like that and make it work. And to make things worse, programs written in BASIC can easily be a tangled mess. That's why I need some advice, read some book or whatever to make my mind clear about this subject. What can you suggest?
You've picked a great project - writing interpreters can be lots of fun!
But first, what do we even mean by an interpreter? There are different types of interpreters.
There is the pure interpreter, where you simply interpret each language element as you find it. These are the easiest to write, and the slowest.
A step up, would be to convert each language element into some sort of internal form, and then interpret that. Still pretty easy to write.
The next step, would be to actually parse the language, and generate a syntax tree, and then interpret that. This is somewhat harder to write, but once you've done it a few times, it becomes pretty easy.
Once you have a syntax tree, you can fairly easily generate code for a custom stack virtual machine. A much harder project is to generate code for an existing virtual machine, such as the JVM or CLR.
In programming, like most engineering endeavors, careful planning greatly helps, especially with complicated projects.
So the first step is to decide which type of interpreter you wish to write. If you have not read any of a number of compiler books (e.g., I always recommend Niklaus Wirth's "Compiler Construction" as one of the best introductions to the subject, and is now freely available on the web in PDF form), I would recommend that you go with the pure interpreter.
But you still need to do some additional planning. You need to rigorously define what it is you are going to be interpreting. EBNF is great for this. For a gentile introduction EBNF, read the first three parts of a Simple Compiler at http://www.semware.com/html/compiler.html It is written at the high school level, and should be easy to digest. Yes, I tried it on my kids first :-)
Once you have defined what it is you want to be interpreting, you are ready to write your interpreter.
Abstractly, you're simple interpreter will be divided into a scanner (technically, a lexical analyzer), a parser, and an evaluator. In the simple pure interpolator case, the parser and evaluator will be combined.
Scanners are easy to write, and easy to test, so we won't spend any time on them. See the aforementioned link for info on crafting a simple scanner.
Lets (for example) define your goto statement:
gotostmt -> 'goto' integer
integer -> [0-9]+
This tells us that when we see the token 'goto' (as delivered by the scanner), the only thing that can follow is an integer. And an integer is simply a string a digits.
In pseudo code, we might handle this as so:
(token - is the current token, which is the current element just returned via the scanner)
loop
if token == "goto"
goto_stmt()
elseif token == "gosub"
gosub_stmt()
elseif token == .....
endloop
proc goto_stmt()
expect("goto") -- redundant, but used to skip over goto
if is_numeric(token)
--now, somehow set the instruction pointer at the requested line
else
error("expecting a line number, found '%s'\n", token)
end
end
proc expect(s)
if s == token
getsym()
return true
end
error("Expecting '%s', found: '%s'\n", curr_token, s)
end
See how simple it is? Really, the only hard thing to figure out in a simple interpreter is the handling of expressions. A good recipe for handling those is at: http://www.engr.mun.ca/~theo/Misc/exp_parsing.htm Combined with the aforementioned references, you should have enough to handle the sort of expressions you would encounter in BASIC.
Ok, time for a concrete example. This is from a larger 'pure interpreter', that handles a enhanced version of Tiny BASIC (but big enough to run Tiny Star Trek :-) )
/*------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple example, pure interpreter, only supports 'goto'
------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdarg.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <setjmp.h>
#include <ctype.h>
enum {False=0, True=1, Max_Lines=300, Max_Len=130};
char *text[Max_Lines+1]; /* array of program lines */
int textp; /* used by scanner - ptr in current line */
char tok[Max_Len+1]; /* the current token */
int cur_line; /* the current line number */
int ch; /* current character */
int num; /* populated if token is an integer */
jmp_buf restart;
int error(const char *fmt, ...) {
va_list ap;
char buf[200];
va_start(ap, fmt);
vsprintf(buf, fmt, ap);
va_end(ap);
printf("%s\n", buf);
longjmp(restart, 1);
return 0;
}
int is_eol(void) {
return ch == '\0' || ch == '\n';
}
void get_ch(void) {
ch = text[cur_line][textp];
if (!is_eol())
textp++;
}
void getsym(void) {
char *cp = tok;
while (ch <= ' ') {
if (is_eol()) {
*cp = '\0';
return;
}
get_ch();
}
if (isalpha(ch)) {
for (; !is_eol() && isalpha(ch); get_ch()) {
*cp++ = (char)ch;
}
*cp = '\0';
} else if (isdigit(ch)) {
for (; !is_eol() && isdigit(ch); get_ch()) {
*cp++ = (char)ch;
}
*cp = '\0';
num = atoi(tok);
} else
error("What? '%c'", ch);
}
void init_getsym(const int n) {
cur_line = n;
textp = 0;
ch = ' ';
getsym();
}
void skip_to_eol(void) {
tok[0] = '\0';
while (!is_eol())
get_ch();
}
int accept(const char s[]) {
if (strcmp(tok, s) == 0) {
getsym();
return True;
}
return False;
}
int expect(const char s[]) {
return accept(s) ? True : error("Expecting '%s', found: %s", s, tok);
}
int valid_line_num(void) {
if (num > 0 && num <= Max_Lines)
return True;
return error("Line number must be between 1 and %d", Max_Lines);
}
void goto_line(void) {
if (valid_line_num())
init_getsym(num);
}
void goto_stmt(void) {
if (isdigit(tok[0]))
goto_line();
else
error("Expecting line number, found: '%s'", tok);
}
void do_cmd(void) {
for (;;) {
while (tok[0] == '\0') {
if (cur_line == 0 || cur_line >= Max_Lines)
return;
init_getsym(cur_line + 1);
}
if (accept("bye")) {
printf("That's all folks!\n");
exit(0);
} else if (accept("run")) {
init_getsym(1);
} else if (accept("goto")) {
goto_stmt();
} else {
error("Unknown token '%s' at line %d", tok, cur_line); return;
}
}
}
int main() {
int i;
for (i = 0; i <= Max_Lines; i++) {
text[i] = calloc(sizeof(char), (Max_Len + 1));
}
setjmp(restart);
for (;;) {
printf("> ");
while (fgets(text[0], Max_Len, stdin) == NULL)
;
if (text[0][0] != '\0') {
init_getsym(0);
if (isdigit(tok[0])) {
if (valid_line_num())
strcpy(text[num], &text[0][textp]);
} else
do_cmd();
}
}
}
Hopefully, that will be enough to get you started. Have fun!
I will certainly get beaten by telling this ...but...:
First, I am actually working on a standalone library ( as a hobby ) that is made of:
a tokenizer, building linear (flat list) of tokens from the source text and following the same sequence as the text ( lexems created from the text flow ).
A parser by hands (syntax analyse; pseudo-compiler )
There is no "pseudo-code" nor "virtual CPU/machine".
Instructions(such as 'return', 'if' 'for' 'while'... then arithemtic expressions ) are represented by a base c++-struct/class and is the object itself. The base object, I name it atom, have a virtual method called "eval", among other common members, that is the "execution/branch" also by itself. So no matter I have an 'if' statement with its possible branchings ( single statement or bloc of statements/instructions ) as true or false condition, it will be called from the base virtual atom::eval() ... and so on for everything that is an atom.
Even 'objects' such as variables are 'atom'. 'eval()' will simply return its value from a variant container held by the atom itself ( pointer, refering to the 'local' variant instance (the instance variant iself) held the 'atom' or to another variant held by an atom that is created in a given 'bloc/stack'. So 'atom' are 'inplace' instructions/objects.
As of now, as an example, chunk of not really meaningful 'code' as below just works:
r = 5!; // 5! : (factorial of 5 )
Response = 1 + 4 - 6 * --r * ((3+5)*(3-4) * 78);
if (Response != 1){ /* '<>' also is not equal op. */
return r^3;
}
else{
return 0;
}
Expressions ( arithemtics ) are built into binary tree expression:
A = b+c; =>
=
/ \
A +
/ \
b c
So the 'instruction'/statement for expression like above is the tree-entry atom that in the above case, is the '=' (binary) operator.
The tree is built with atom::r0,r1,r2 :
atom 'A' :
r0
|
A
/ \
r1 r2
Regarding 'full-duplex' mecanism between c++ runtime and the 'script' library, I've made class_adaptor and adaptor<> :
ex.:
template<typename R, typename ...Args> adaptor_t<T,R, Args...>& import_method(const lstring& mname, R (T::*prop)(Args...)) { ... }
template<typename R, typename ...Args> adaptor_t<T,R, Args...>& import_property(const lstring& mname, R (T::*prop)(Args...)) { ... }
Second: I know there are plenty of tools and libs out there such as lua, boost::bind<*>, QML, JSON, etc... But in my situation, I need to create my very own [edit] 'independant' [/edit] lib for "live scripting". I was scared that my 'interpreter' could take a huge amount of RAM, but I am surprised that it is not as big as using QML,jscript or even lua :-)
Thank you :-)
Don't bother with hacking a parser together by hand. Use a parser generator. lex + yacc is the classic lexer/parser generator combination, but a Google search will reveal plenty of others.
In my previous question I was looking for a way of evaulating complex mathematical expressions in C, most of the suggestions required implementing some type of parser.
However one answer, suggested using Lua for evaluating the expression. I am interested in this approach but I don't know anything about Lua.
Can some one with experience in Lua shed some light?
Specifically what I'd like to know is
Which API if any does Lua provide that can evaluate mathematical expressions passed in as a string? If there is no API to do such a thing, may be some one can shed some light on the linked answer as it seemed like a good approach :)
Thanks
The type of expression I'd like to evaluate is given some user input such as
y = x^2 + 1/x - cos(x)
evaluate y for a range of values of x
It is straightforward to set up a Lua interpreter instance, and pass it expressions to be evaluated, getting back a function to call that evaluates the expression. You can even let the user have variables...
Here's the sample code I cooked up and edited into my other answer. It is probably better placed on a question tagged Lua in any case, so I'm adding it here as well. I compiled this and tried it for a few cases, but it certainly should not be trusted in production code without some attention to error handling and so forth. All the usual caveats apply here.
I compiled and tested this on Windows using Lua 5.1.4 from Lua for Windows. On other platforms, you'll have to find Lua from your usual source, or from www.lua.org.
Update: This sample uses simple and direct techniques to hide the full power and complexity of the Lua API behind as simple as possible an interface. It is probably useful as-is, but could be improved in a number of ways.
I would encourage readers to look into the much more production-ready ae library by lhf for code that takes advantage of the API to avoid some of the quick and dirty string manipulation I've used. His library also promotes the math library into the global name space so that the user can say sin(x) or 2 * pi without having to say math.sin and so forth.
Public interface to LE
Here is the file le.h:
/* Public API for the LE library.
*/
int le_init();
int le_loadexpr(char *expr, char **pmsg);
double le_eval(int cookie, char **pmsg);
void le_unref(int cookie);
void le_setvar(char *name, double value);
double le_getvar(char *name);
Sample code using LE
Here is the file t-le.c, demonstrating a simple use of this library. It takes its single command-line argument, loads it as an expression, and evaluates it with the global variable x changing from 0.0 to 1.0 in 11 steps:
#include <stdio.h>
#include "le.h"
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int cookie;
int i;
char *msg = NULL;
if (!le_init()) {
printf("can't init LE\n");
return 1;
}
if (argc<2) {
printf("Usage: t-le \"expression\"\n");
return 1;
}
cookie = le_loadexpr(argv[1], &msg);
if (msg) {
printf("can't load: %s\n", msg);
free(msg);
return 1;
}
printf(" x %s\n"
"------ --------\n", argv[1]);
for (i=0; i<11; ++i) {
double x = i/10.;
double y;
le_setvar("x",x);
y = le_eval(cookie, &msg);
if (msg) {
printf("can't eval: %s\n", msg);
free(msg);
return 1;
}
printf("%6.2f %.3f\n", x,y);
}
}
Here is some output from t-le:
E:...>t-le "math.sin(math.pi * x)"
x math.sin(math.pi * x)
------ --------
0.00 0.000
0.10 0.309
0.20 0.588
0.30 0.809
0.40 0.951
0.50 1.000
0.60 0.951
0.70 0.809
0.80 0.588
0.90 0.309
1.00 0.000
E:...>
Implementation of LE
Here is le.c, implementing the Lua Expression evaluator:
#include <lua.h>
#include <lauxlib.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
static lua_State *L = NULL;
/* Initialize the LE library by creating a Lua state.
*
* The new Lua interpreter state has the "usual" standard libraries
* open.
*/
int le_init()
{
L = luaL_newstate();
if (L)
luaL_openlibs(L);
return !!L;
}
/* Load an expression, returning a cookie that can be used later to
* select this expression for evaluation by le_eval(). Note that
* le_unref() must eventually be called to free the expression.
*
* The cookie is a lua_ref() reference to a function that evaluates the
* expression when called. Any variables in the expression are assumed
* to refer to the global environment, which is _G in the interpreter.
* A refinement might be to isolate the function envioronment from the
* globals.
*
* The implementation rewrites the expr as "return "..expr so that the
* anonymous function actually produced by lua_load() looks like:
*
* function() return expr end
*
*
* If there is an error and the pmsg parameter is non-NULL, the char *
* it points to is filled with an error message. The message is
* allocated by strdup() so the caller is responsible for freeing the
* storage.
*
* Returns a valid cookie or the constant LUA_NOREF (-2).
*/
int le_loadexpr(char *expr, char **pmsg)
{
int err;
char *buf;
if (!L) {
if (pmsg)
*pmsg = strdup("LE library not initialized");
return LUA_NOREF;
}
buf = malloc(strlen(expr)+8);
if (!buf) {
if (pmsg)
*pmsg = strdup("Insufficient memory");
return LUA_NOREF;
}
strcpy(buf, "return ");
strcat(buf, expr);
err = luaL_loadstring(L,buf);
free(buf);
if (err) {
if (pmsg)
*pmsg = strdup(lua_tostring(L,-1));
lua_pop(L,1);
return LUA_NOREF;
}
if (pmsg)
*pmsg = NULL;
return luaL_ref(L, LUA_REGISTRYINDEX);
}
/* Evaluate the loaded expression.
*
* If there is an error and the pmsg parameter is non-NULL, the char *
* it points to is filled with an error message. The message is
* allocated by strdup() so the caller is responsible for freeing the
* storage.
*
* Returns the result or 0 on error.
*/
double le_eval(int cookie, char **pmsg)
{
int err;
double ret;
if (!L) {
if (pmsg)
*pmsg = strdup("LE library not initialized");
return 0;
}
lua_rawgeti(L, LUA_REGISTRYINDEX, cookie);
err = lua_pcall(L,0,1,0);
if (err) {
if (pmsg)
*pmsg = strdup(lua_tostring(L,-1));
lua_pop(L,1);
return 0;
}
if (pmsg)
*pmsg = NULL;
ret = (double)lua_tonumber(L,-1);
lua_pop(L,1);
return ret;
}
/* Free the loaded expression.
*/
void le_unref(int cookie)
{
if (!L)
return;
luaL_unref(L, LUA_REGISTRYINDEX, cookie);
}
/* Set a variable for use in an expression.
*/
void le_setvar(char *name, double value)
{
if (!L)
return;
lua_pushnumber(L,value);
lua_setglobal(L,name);
}
/* Retrieve the current value of a variable.
*/
double le_getvar(char *name)
{
double ret;
if (!L)
return 0;
lua_getglobal(L,name);
ret = (double)lua_tonumber(L,-1);
lua_pop(L,1);
return ret;
}
Remarks
The above sample consists of 189 lines of code total, including a spattering of comments, blank lines, and the demonstration. Not bad for a quick function evaluator that knows how to evaluate reasonably arbitrary expressions of one variable, and has rich library of standard math functions at its beck and call.
You have a Turing-complete language underneath it all, and it would be an easy extension to allow the user to define complete functions as well as to evaluate simple expressions.
Since you're lazy, like most programmers, here's a link to a simple example that you can use to parse some arbitrary code using Lua. From there, it should be simple to create your expression parser.
This is for Lua users that are looking for a Lua equivalent of "eval".
The magic word used to be loadstring but it is now, since Lua 5.2, an upgraded version of load.
i=0
f = load("i = i + 1") -- f is a function
f() ; print(i) -- will produce 1
f() ; print(i) -- will produce 2
Another example, that delivers a value :
f=load('return 2+3')
print(f()) -- print 5
As a quick-and-dirty way to do, you can consider the following equivalent of eval(s), where s is a string to evaluate :
load(s)()
As always, eval mechanisms should be avoided when possible since they are expensive and produce a code difficult to read.
I personally use this mechanism with LuaTex/LuaLatex to make math operations in Latex.
The Lua documentation contains a section titled The Application Programming Interface which describes how to call Lua from your C program. The documentation for Lua is very good and you may even be able to find an example of what you want to do in there.
It's a big world in there, so whether you choose your own parsing solution or an embeddable interpreter like Lua, you're going to have some work to do!
function calc(operation)
return load("return " .. operation)()
end