Related
I want to use a variable that references an arithmetic operator within an if statement expression as shown below:
str = { '>60', '>60', '>-60', '=0' }
del = 75
function decode_prog(var1, var2)
op = string.sub(var1, 1, 1)
vb = tonumber(string.sub(var1, 2, 3))
if var2 op vb then
print("condition met")
else
print('condition not meet')
end
end
for i = 1, #str do
decode_prog(str[i], del)
end
When the above code executes, it should either print "condition met" or "condition not met" based on the result of the operation, however I am instead receiving an error.
You cannot substitute a native Lua operator with a variable that references a function, the only way to go about what you are attempted to do is to create a set of functions within an associative array and set the index as a reference to the respective operation you want to conduct.
Looking at your list, you have a greater than (>) and equal to (=). We create a table for these operations that takes two parameters as follows.
local operators = {
[">"] = function(x, y) return x > y end,
["="] = function(x, y) return x == y end,
-- Add more operations as required.
}
You can then invoke the respective function from the decode_prog function by obtaining the operation character from the string, along with the numeric value itself - this is possible because you can obtain the function from the associative array where the index is the string of the operation we want to conduct.
local result = operators[op](var2, number)
This calls upon the operators array, uses the op to determine which index we need to go to for our appropriate operation, and returns the value.
Final Code:
str = { '>60', '>60', '>-60', '=0' }
del = 75
local operators = {
[">"] = function(x, y) return x > y end,
["="] = function(x, y) return x == y end,
}
function decode_prog(var1, var2)
local op = string.sub(var1, 1, 1) -- Fetch the arithmetic operator we intend to use.
local number = tonumber(string.sub(var1, 2)) -- Strip the operator from the number string and convert the result to a numeric value.
local result = operators[op](var2, number) -- Invoke the respective function from the operators table based on what character we see at position one.
if result then
print("condition met")
else
print('condition not meet')
end
end
for i = 1, #str do
decode_prog(str[i], del)
end
I can't make much sense of your code or what you want to achieve doing that but if could simply use load.
You build your expression as a string and run it. Of course you should take care of two character operators like >= which I did not and you should validate your input.
local str={'>60','>60','>-60','=0'}
local del=75
function decode_prog(var1, var2)
local operator = var1:sub(1,1):gsub("=", "==")
local expr = string.format("return %d %s %s", var2,operator, var1:sub(2))
print(string.format("condition %smet", load(expr)() and "" or "not "))
end
for i,v in ipairs(str) do
decode_prog(v, del)
end
A very simple way would be to add a condition for each supported operator:
function decode_prog(var1, var2)
op = string.sub(var1, 1, 1)
vb = tonumber(string.sub(var1, 2)) --remove the last argument and use tonumber()
if vb == nil then return end --if the string does not contain number
if (op == ">" and var2 > vb) or (op == "=" and var2 == vb) --[[add more conditions here]] then
print("condition met")
else
print("condition not met")
end
end
I changed the vb=string.sub(var1,2,3) line too.
This form vb = tonumber(string.sub(var1, 2)) will allow use of numbers that have any number of digits and added tonumber() which will allow us to catch not-a-number errors when comparison would probably fail.
Then I added a logic to determine what the operator is and if the condition is met.
Operator limitations:
This will only work with operators that are one character and operator such as >= will not be possible unless you use a different character for it. ≥ will not play nicely, since it is multiple characters.
I have found the following quote on this site http://lua-users.org/wiki/MetamethodsTutorial:
__eq is called when the == operator is used on two tables, the reference equality check failed, and both tables have the same __eq metamethod (!).
Now I tested it with Lua 5.3.5 and this is not at all what I observed:
a = {}
b = {}
m = {}
m2 = {}
setmetatable(a, m)
setmetatable(b, m2)
m.__eq = function(p1, p2) print("why"); return true end
m2.__eq = function(p1, p2) print("why2"); return true end
This is the code I tested with.
> a == b
why
true
> b == a
why2
true
It looks like it does the same thing as with the comparison operators, where it just takes the left table and uses its metamethod.
Did this change in recent Lua versions or did I make an error with my test?
Thanks for your help.
That changed in Lua 5.3. The readme says it introduced "more flexible rules for some metamethods". Compare the Lua 5.2 reference manual:
the == operation. The function getequalhandler defines how Lua chooses a metamethod for equality. A metamethod is selected only when both values being compared have the same type and the same metamethod for the selected operation, and the values are either tables or full userdata.
function getequalhandler (op1, op2)
if type(op1) ~= type(op2) or
(type(op1) ~= "table" and type(op1) ~= "userdata") then
return nil -- different values
end
local mm1 = metatable(op1).__eq
local mm2 = metatable(op2).__eq
if mm1 == mm2 then return mm1 else return nil end
end
The "eq" event is defined as follows:
function eq_event (op1, op2)
if op1 == op2 then -- primitive equal?
return true -- values are equal
end
-- try metamethod
local h = getequalhandler(op1, op2)
if h then
return not not h(op1, op2)
else
return false
end
end
Note that the result is always a boolean.
With the Lua 5.3 reference manual:
the equal (==) operation. Behavior similar to the addition operation, except that Lua will try a metamethod only when the values being compared are either both tables or both full userdata and they are not primitively equal. The result of the call is always converted to a boolean.
Looking at the chapter 7.1 – Iterators and Closures from "Programming in Lua" it seems like the the for foo in bar loop takes requires bar to be of type (using Java typesto express it) Supplier<Tuple> and the the for-in will keep calling bar until it returns nil.
So for something like:
for k,v in pairs( tables ) do
print( 'key: '..k..', value: '..v )
end
that implies pairs has a type of Function<Table,Supplier<Tuple>>.
I want to create a function that behaves like pairs except it skips tuples where the first argument starts with an underscore (ie _).
local function mypairs( list )
local --[[ Supplier<Tuple> ]] pairIterator = pairs( list )
return --[[ Supplier<Tuple> ]] function ()
while true do
local key, value = pairIterator()
if key == nil then
return nil
elseif key:sub(1,1) ~= '_' then
return key, value
end
end
end
end
however it doesn't work since
--[[should be: Supplier<Table>]] pairIterator = pairs({ c=3; b=2; a=1 })
when I call it
pairIterator()
it returns
stdin:1: bad argument #1 to 'pairIterator' (table expected, got no value)
stack traceback:
[C]: in function 'pairIterator'
stdin:1: in main chunk
[C]: in ?
but
pairIterator({ c=3; b=2; a=1 })
returns
Lua>pairIterator({ c=3; b=2; a=1 })
c 3
Your basic problem is that you're using Java logic on Lua problems. Java and Lua are different languages with different constructs, and it's important to recognize that.
pairs does not have a return value; it has multiple return values. This is a concept that Java completely lacks. A Tuple is a single value that can store and manipulate multiple values. A Lua function can return multiple values. This is syntactically and semantically distinct from returning a table containing multiple values.
The iterator-based for statement takes multiple values as its input, not a table or container of multiple values. Specifically, it stores 3 values: an iterator function, a state value (which you use to preserve state between calls), and an initial value.
So, if you want to mimic pairs's behavior, you need to be able to store and manipulate its multiple return values.
Your first step is to store what pairs actually returns:
local f, s, var = pairs(list)
You are creating a new iterator function. So you need to return that, but you also need to return the s and var that pairs returns. Your return statement needs to look like this:
return function (s, var)
--[[Contents discussed below]]
end, s, var --Returning what `pairs` would return.
Now, inside your function, you need to call f with s and var. This function will return the key/value pair. And you need to process them correctly:
return function (s, var)
repeat
local key, value = f(s, var)
if(type(key) ~= "string") then
--Non-string types can't have an `_` in them.
--And no need to special-case `nil`.
return key, value
elseif(key:sub(1, 1) ~= '_') then
return key, value
end
until true
end, s, var --Returning what `pairs` would return.
pairs() returns three separate values:
a function to call with parameters (table, key) that returns a key and value
the table you passed to it
the first 'key' value to pass to the function (nil for pairs(), 0 for ipairs())
So something like this:
for k,v in pairs({a=1, b=13, c=169}) do print(k, v) end
Can be done like this:
local f,t,k = pairs({a=1, b=13, c=169})
local v
print('first k: '..tostring(k))
k,v = f(t, k)
while k ~= nil do
print('k: '..tostring(k)..', v: '..tostring(v))
k,v = f(t, k)
end
Results:
first k: nil
k: c, v: 169
k: b, v: 13
k: a, v: 1
And you don't have to take an argument, this has manual if statements for each value:
function mypairs()
-- the function returned should take the table and an index, and
-- return the next value you expect AND the next index to pass to
-- get the value after. return nil and nil to end
local myfunc = function(t, val)
if val == 0 then return 1, 'first' end
if val == 1 then return 2, 'second' end
if val == 2 then return 3, 'third' end
return nil, nil
end
-- returns a function, the table, and the first value to pass
-- to the function
return myfunc, nil, 0
end
for i,v in mypairs() do
print('i: '..tostring(i)..', v: '..tostring(v))
end
-- output:
-- i: 1, v: first
-- i: 2, v: second
-- i: 3, v: third
For your mypairs(list) you can just keep calling the function returned from pairs as long as the key has an underscore to get the next value:
local function mypairs( list )
local f,t,k = pairs(list)
return function(t,k)
local a,b = f(t, k)
while type(a) == 'string' and a:sub(1,1) == '_' do a,b = f(t,a) end
return a,b
end, t, k
end
local list = {a=5, _b=11, c = 13, _d=69}
for k,v in mypairs(list) do print(k, v) end
-- output:
-- c 13
-- a 5
The docs you link to have an iterator that only returns one value and pairs() returns 2, but you could return more if you want. The for ... in ... construct will only execute the body if the first value is non-nil. Here's a version that also returns the keys that were skipped, the body isn't executed if you don't end up with an actual value though so you might not see all the _ keys:
local function mypairs( list )
local f,t,k = pairs(list)
return function(t,k)
local skipped = {}
local a,b = f(t, k)
while type(a) == 'string' and a:sub(1,1) == '_' do
table.insert(skipped, a)
a,b = f(t,a)
end
return a,b,skipped
end, t, k
end
local list = {a=5, _b=11, c = 13, _d=69}
for k,v,skipped in mypairs(list) do
for i,s in ipairs(skipped) do
print('Skipped: '..s)
end
print(k, v)
end
I'm writing small profiling library for my lua code based on hooks, because I cannot use any of the existing ones (company policies).
I'm considering if it makes sense to allow always working on-demand profiling for all of my scripts just by setting variable to true, eg.
function hook(event)
if prof_enabled then
do_stuff()
end
end
--(in main context)
debug.sethook(hook, "cr")
So the question is, should I expect a significant performance hit if prof_enabled = false and hook is always set? I'm not expecting exact answer, but rather some insights (maybe, for example lua interpreter will optimize it anyway?)
I know that the best solution would be to only set the hook when it's required, but I cannot do that here.
There are ways of doing that without hook functions. One way is to replace functions of interest with a "generated" function that does profiling things (like count number of calls) and then calls the "real" function. Like this:
-- set up profiling
local profile = {}
-- stub function to profile an existing function
local function make_profile_func (fname, f)
profile [fname] = { func = f, count = 0 }
return function (...)
profile [fname].count = profile [fname].count + 1
local results = { f (...) } -- call original function
return unpack (results) -- return results
end -- function
end -- make_profile_func
function pairsByKeys (t, f)
local a = {}
-- build temporary table of the keys
for n in pairs (t) do
table.insert (a, n)
end
table.sort (a, f) -- sort using supplied function, if any
local i = 0 -- iterator variable
return function () -- iterator function
i = i + 1
return a[i], t[a[i]]
end -- iterator function
end -- pairsByKeys
-- show profile, called by alias
-- non-profiled functions
local npfunctions = {
string_format = string.format,
string_rep = string.rep,
string_gsub = string.gsub,
table_insert = table.insert,
table_sort = table.sort,
pairs = pairs,
}
function show_profile (name, line, wildcards)
print (npfunctions.string_rep ("-", 20), "Function profile - alpha order",
npfunctions.string_rep ("-", 20))
print ""
print (npfunctions.string_format ("%25s %8s", "Function", "Count"))
print ""
for k, v in pairsByKeys (profile) do
if v.count > 0 then
print (npfunctions.string_format ("%25s %8i", k, v.count))
end -- if
end -- for
print ""
local t = {}
for k, v in npfunctions.pairs (profile) do
if v.count > 0 then
npfunctions.table_insert (t, k)
end -- if used
end -- for
npfunctions.table_sort (t, function (a, b) return profile [a].count > profile [b].count end )
print (npfunctions.string_rep ("-", 20), "Function profile - count order",
npfunctions.string_rep ("-", 20))
print ""
print (npfunctions.string_format ("%25s %8s", "Function", "Count"))
print ""
for _, k in ipairs (t) do
print (npfunctions.string_format ("%25s %8i", k, profile [k].count))
end -- for
print ""
end -- show_profile
-- replace string functions by profiling stub function
for k, f in pairs (string) do
if type (f) == "function" then
string [k] = make_profile_func (k, f)
end -- if
end -- for
-- test
for i = 1, 10 do
string.gsub ("aaaa", "a", "b")
end -- for
for i = 1, 20 do
string.match ("foo", "f")
end -- for
-- display results
show_profile ()
In this particular test I called string.gsub 10 times and string.match 20 times. Now the output is:
-------------------- Function profile - alpha order --------------------
Function Count
gsub 10
match 20
-------------------- Function profile - count order --------------------
Function Count
match 20
gsub 10
You could do other things, like time functions, if you had a high-precision timer.
I adapted this from a post on the MUSHclient forum where I also got precise timings.
What make_profile_func does is keep a copy of the original function pointer in an upvalue, and return a function that adds one to a call count, calls the original function, and returns its results. The beauty of this is that you can omit the overhead by simply not replacing the functions with their generated counterparts.
In other words, omit these lines and there will be no overhead:
for k, f in pairs (string) do
if type (f) == "function" then
string [k] = make_profile_func (k, f)
end -- if
end -- for
There is a bit of fiddling around in the code to use non-profiled versions of the functions that are used in generating the profiles (otherwise you get a slightly misleading reading).
I'm wokring with Lua 5.2, and for the sake of this question, assume that the tables are used exclusively as arrays.
Here's a function that returns the tail of an array (the array minus its first element):
function tail(t)
if # t <= 1 then
return nil
end
local newtable = {}
for i, v in ipairs(t) do
if i > 1 then
table.insert(newtable, v)
end
end
return newtable
end
For instance:
prompt> table.concat(tail({10, 23, 8}), ", ")
23, 8
However this is achieved by returning a new copy of the table. Is there a way to avoid the creation of a new table?
I am looking for the equivalent of C's returning a pointer to the next element (t++). Is it possible?
As already explained, this is normally impossible.
However, using metatables, you could implement a tail function that performs what you want without copying all the data, by referencing the original table. The following works for most operations in Lua 5.2, but for example not for table.concat:
function tail(t)
return setmetatable({}, {
__index = function(_, k) return t[k+1] end,
__newindex = function(_, k, v) t[k+1] = v end,
__len = function(_) return #t-1 end,
__ipairs = function(_) return
function(_, i)
if i+1==#t then return nil end
return i+1, t[i+2] end,
t, 0 end,
__pairs = function(t) return ipairs(t) end,
})
end
This is the nicest way I know to implement tail(). It makes one new table, but I don't think that's avoidable.
function tail(list)
return { select(2, unpack(list)) }
end
Nicol is correct that you can't reference a slice of an array, but there is an easier/shorter way to do what you want to do:
function tail(t)
local function helper(head, ...) return #{...} > 0 and {...} or nil end
return helper((table.unpack or unpack)(t))
end
print(table.concat(tail({10, 23, 8}), ", ")) will then print 23,8.
(added table.unpack or unpack to make it also work with Lua 5.2)
I am looking for the equivalent of C's returning a pointer to the next element (t++). Is it possible?
No. The only possible reason you could want this is performance. Such a feature is only found in low-level programming languages. Lua is a scripting language: performance is not such a priority that this would be implemented.
Just make another table like you're doing, or use table.remove to modify the original. Whichever works best for you. Remember: the big, important objects like tables and userdata are all stored by reference in Lua, not by value.
prapin's suggestion, to use metatables to present a view of the sequence, is roughly the way I'd do it. An abstraction that might help is defining a metatable for segments, which can be an 0-ary function that returns a pair of a table and an offset index - we are only using functions here to represent tuples. We can then define a metatable that makes this function behave like a table:
do
local tail_mt = {
__index = function(f, k) local t, i=f(); return t[k+i] end,
__newindex = function(f, k, v) local t,i=f(); t[k+1] = v end,
__len = function(f) local t,i=f(); return #t-i end,
__ipairs = function(f)
local t,i = f ()
return
function (_, j)
if i+j>=#t then
return nil
else
return j+1, t[i+j+1]
end
end, nil, 0
end,
}
tail_mt.__pairs = tail_mt.__ipairs -- prapin collapsed this functionality, so I do too
function tail (t)
if type(t) == "table" then
return setmetatable ( function () return t, 1 end, tail_mt )
elseif type(t) == "function" then
local t1, i = t ()
return setmetatable ( function () return t1, i+1 end, tail_mt )
end
end
end
With __index and __newindex metamethods, you can write code such as f[2]=f[1]+1.
Although this (untested) code doesn't endlessly create one-off metatables, it is probably less efficient than prapin's, since it will be calling thunks (0-ary functions) to get at their contents. But if you might be interested in extending the functionality, say by having more general views on the sequence, I think this is a bit more flexible.