It is my understanding that in Lua 5.2 that environments are stored in upvalues named _ENV. This has made it really confusing for me to modify the environment of a chunk before running it, but after loading it.
I would like to load a file with some functions and use the chunk to inject those functions into various environments. Example:
chunk = loadfile( "file" )
-- Inject chunk's definitions
chunk._ENV = someTable -- imaginary syntax
chunk( )
chunk._ENV = someOtherTable
chunk( )
Is this possible from within Lua? The only examples I can find of modifying this upvalue are with the C api (another example from C api), but I am trying to do this from within Lua. Is this possible?
Edit: I'm unsure of accepting answers using the debug library. The docs state that the functions may be slow. I'm doing this for efficiency so that entire chunks don't have to be parsed from strings (or a file, even worse) just to inject variable definitions into various environments.
Edit: Looks like this is impossible: Recreating setfenv() in Lua 5.2
Edit: I suppose the best way for me to do this is to bind a C function that can modify the environment. Though this is a much more annoying way of going about it.
Edit: I believe a more natural way to do this would be to load all chunks into separate environments. These can be "inherited" by any other environment by setting a metatable that refers to a global copy of a chunk. This does not require any upvalue modification post-load, but still allows for multiple environments with those function definitions.
The simplest way to allow a chunk to be run in different environments is to make this explicit and have it receive an environment. Adding this line at the top of the chunk achieves this:
_ENV=...
Now you can call chunk(env1) and later chunk(env2) at your pleasure.
There, no debug magic with upvalues.
Although it will be clear if your chunk contains that line, you can add it at load time, by writing a suitable reader function that first sends that line and then the contents of the file.
I do not understand why you want to avoid using the debug library, while you are happy to use a C function (neither is possible in a sandbox.)
It can be done using debug.upvaluejoin:
function newEnvForChunk(chunk, index)
local newEnv = {}
local function source() return newEnv end
debug.upvaluejoin(chunk, 1, source, 1)
if index then setmetatable(newEnv, {__index=index}) end
return newEnv
end
Now load any chunk like this:
local myChunk = load "print(x)"
It will initially inherit the enclosing _ENV. Now give it a new one:
local newEnv = newEnvForChunk(myChunk, _ENV)
and insert a value for 'x':
newEnv.x = 99
Now when you run the chunk, it should see the value for x:
myChunk()
=> 99
If you don't want to modify your chunk (per LHF's great answer) here are two alternatives:
Set up a blank environment, then dynamically change its environment to yours
function compile(code)
local meta = {}
local env = setmetatable({},meta)
return {meta=meta, f=load('return '..code, nil, nil, env)}
end
function eval(block, scope)
block.meta.__index=scope
return block.f()
end
local block = compile('a + b * c')
print(eval(block, {a=1, b=2, c=3})) --> 7
print(eval(block, {a=2, b=3, c=4})) --> 14
Set up a blank environment, and re-set its values with your own each time
function compile(code)
local env = {}
return {env=env, f=load('return '..code, nil, nil, env)}
end
function eval(block, scope)
for k,_ in pairs(block.env) do block.env[k]=nil end
for k,v in pairs(scope) do block.env[k]=v end
return block.f()
end
local block = compile('a + b * c')
print(eval(block, {a=1, b=2, c=3})) --> 7
print(eval(block, {a=2, b=3, c=4})) --> 14
Note that if micro-optimizations matter, the first option is about 2✕ as slow as the _ENV=... answer, while the second options is about 8–9✕ as slow.
Related
I am currently doing 2 steps in my code and I just realized I can combine both steps in a LUA script.
I am doing:
SPOP on my set
calling a lua script to do other things.
The value from step#1 is being passed and stored in the local variable ele.
My lua script looks like:
local ele = KEYS[1]
local p = KEYS[2]
local u = KEYS[3]
if redis.call("SISMEMBER", u, ele) == 0 then
..
..
return "OK"
else
return "EXISTS"
end
How can I call SPOP from inside my lua script and store it in a variable.
I need to do:
local popped = redis.call("SPOP", "my-set-here")
I'm not sure if that will work, but then I have to check if it is null or has a value I guess. Just want to make sure I am following best practise.
BTW, as a side note, what is the fastest way to create and test lua scripts?
You can check the value of popped for non-nillness with something like:
if popped then
-- do something
end
As for developing Redis Lua scripts, have a look at Zerobrane's integration:
http://notebook.kulchenko.com/zerobrane/redis-lua-debugging-with-zerobrane-studio
https://redislabs.com/blog/zerobrane-studio-plugin-for-redis-lua-scripts/
Disclosure: I was involved in the integration effort ;)
I want to call another lua script from my main script say like
session:execute("lua","/path/somefile.lua "..somearg1.." "..somearg2..)
its working fine and somefile.lua is executing but suppose i also want to use session there i.e. i am accessing a database in somefile.lua and want to speak a query result in somefile.lua by using session. (session:speak(queryResult)).
i also tried sending session as one of argument
session:execute("lua","/path/somefile.lua "..session)
but it gives a error "attempt to concatenate global 'session' (a userdata value)"
any advise..??
code of first lua file
session:answer();
session:setAutoHangup(false);
session:set_tts_params("flite","kal");
callerId = session:getVariable("caller_id_number");
session:execute("lua ","/etc/freeswitch/scripts/checkbal.lua "..callerId.." "..session);
session:destroy();
code for 2nd lua file
callerId=argv[1];
session=argv[2];
luasql = require "luasql.postgres";
env=assert(luasql:postgres());
con=assert(env:connect("mydb","postgres","password","127.0.0.1","5432"));
cur=assert(con:execute("select balance from bal where number='"..callerId.."'"));
session:set_tts_params("flite","kal");
row=cur:fetch({},"a");
res=row.balance;
session:speak(res);
Rig your second file to be a module that returns a function or a table of functions. Here is an example that has second file return a "speak" function that you can then re-use as many times as desired:
Code of first Lua file:
session:answer()
session:setAutoHangup(false)
session:set_tts_params("flite","kal")
callerId = session:getVariable("caller_id_number")
speak = require 'checkbal'
speak(session, callerId)
-- session:execute("lua ","/etc/freeswitch/scripts/checkbal.lua "..callerId.." "..session)
session:destroy()
Code for 2nd Lua file:
luasql = require "luasql.postgres"
local env=assert(luasql:postgres())
local con=assert(env:connect("mydb","postgres","password","127.0.0.1","5432"))
local function speak(session, callerId)
local cur = assert(con:execute("select balance from bal where number='"..callerId.."'"))
session:set_tts_params("flite","kal")
row=cur:fetch({},"a")
res=row.balance
session:speak(res)
end
return speak
Note: this is Lua: no need for semicolons.
I would consider making "session" an object (table with methods) with a "speak" method, but this is going beyond scope of this question and is not necessary, may just lead to more maintainable code later.
I have some lua code in a file. I want to create multiple closure instances of this code, each with a different _ENV upvalue. I can use luaL_loadfile to load the file and set the first upvalue, N times with different tables, to create N instances. But wouldn't this load and compile the file N times?
The lua equivalent of what i want to do is the following, except without the loadfile
func_list = {}
for i = 1, 10 do
local new_env = {hello=i, print=print}
func_list[i] = loadfile("Code.lua", "t", new_env)
end
for i = 1, 10 do
func_list[i]()
end
------ Code.lua ------
print(hello*hello)
is there a better way to do this?
Whenever you load a string/file in Lua, what you get in return is a function to call to actually run the file. What load does for you is just some additional processing to set the _ENV.
However, nothing prevents you from setting _ENV yourself. You could do it with something like this:
-- Code.lua --
_ENV = ...
print(hello * hello)
Then, you could load/compile the file just once, and use multiple instances as such:
local code = loadfile("Code.lua")
env_list = {}
for i = 1, 10 do
local new_env = {hello=i, print=print}
code(new_env)
env_list[i] = new_env
end
If you do not want the user to write _ENV = ... in every file, you could instead load the file into a string, prepend the line yourself and use load to compile the source. But this would not work on compiled files.
Use the IO libraries to load the file into a string, and then call loadstring on it.
Alternatively, just get one chunk and then change it's env prior to executing it
For example, I have a table
table.insert( t, 1, function()
print ("rock");
end );
Is there any way to get function name from this table. I know that I can store name like a key, but what if I want to keep numeric index and also I want to know function name?
Is there any way to do it?
Thanks, on advance.
Say you have this code:
t = {}
x = 5
table.insert(t, 1, x)
t would then be {[1] = 5}. "5" is just a number - it has no name, and isn't associated with the variable "x"; it's a value.
In Lua, functions are treated exactly the same way, as values:
t = {}
x = function() print("test! :D") end
table.insert(t, 1, x)
The value of x is not associated with x in any way, shape, or form. If you want to manually name a function, you can do it by wrapping the function in a table, for example:
t = {}
x = function() print("test! :D") end
table.insert(t, 1, {
name = "MyFunctionName",
func = x
})
That is how you would do it!
...unless..
..you break the rules!
When Lua was developed, the developers realised that the anonymous nature of functions would make productive error messages difficult to produce, if not impossible.
The best thing you'd see would be:
stdin: some error!
stdin: in function 'unknown'
stdin: in function 'unknown'
So, they made it so that when Lua code was parsed, it would record some debug information, to make life easier. To access this information from Lua itself, the debug library is provided.
Be very careful with functions in this library.
You should exert care when using this library. The functions provided here should be used exclusively for debugging and similar tasks, such as profiling. Please resist the temptation to use them as a usual programming tool: they can be very slow. Moreover, several of these functions violate some assumptions about Lua code (e.g., that variables local to a function cannot be accessed from outside or that userdata metatables cannot be changed by Lua code) and therefore can compromise otherwise secure code.
To achieve your desired effect, you must use the debug.getinfo function; an example:
x = function()
print("test!")
print(debug.getinfo(1, "n").name)
end
x() -- prints "test!" followed by "x"
Unfortunately, the form of debug.getinfo that operates directly on a function doesn't fill the name argument (debug.getinfo(x, "n").name == nil) and the version above requires you to run the function.
It seems hopeless!
...unless..
..you really break the rules.
The debug.sethook function allows you to interrupt running Lua code at certain events, and even change things while it's all happening. This, combined with coroutines, allows you to do some interestingly hacky stuff.
Here is an implementation of debug.getfuncname:
function debug.getfuncname(f)
--[[If name found, returns
name source line
If name not found, returns
nil source line
If error, returns
nil nil error
]]
if type(f) == "function" then
local info = debug.getinfo(f, "S")
if not info or not info.what then
return nil, nil, "Invalid function"
elseif info.what == "C" then
-- cannot be called on C functions, as they would execute!
return nil, nil, "C function"
end
--[[Deep magic, look away!]]
local co = coroutine.create(f)
local name, source, linedefined
debug.sethook(co, function(event, line)
local info = debug.getinfo(2, "Sn")
name = info.namewhat ~= "" and info.name or nil
source, linedefined = info.short_src, info.linedefined
coroutine.yield() -- prevent function from executing code
end, "c")
coroutine.resume(co)
return name, source, linedefined
end
return nil, nil, "Not a function"
end
Example usage:
function test()
print("If this prints, stuff went really wrong!")
end
print("Name = ", debug.getfuncname(test))
This function isn't very reliable - it works sometimes, and doesn't others. The debug library is very touchy, so it's to be expected.
Note that you should never use this for actual release code! Only for debugging!
The most extreme case that is still acceptable is logging errors on piece of released software, to help the developer fix issues. No vital code should depend on functions from the debug library.
Good luck!
The function hasn't got any name. If you want you can assign it to a named variable:
theFunction = t[1]
-- Call it:
theFunction()
If what you want is storing a named function to the table, define it beforehand and use its name to store it:
theFunction = function()
print ("rock");
end
table.insert(t, 1, theFunction)
If this is not what you meant, give more details; for example how you would like to access the function. You're question is a bit misty.
The thing is table.insert considers the table as a sequence, only with numeric keys.
If you want to be able to call the function as t.fun() you'll have to use the table as an associative array and hence use a string as key. (BTW any type except nil or NaN are allowed as key)
t={}
t['MyFun']=function print'foo' end
t.myFun() -- uses syntactic sugar for string keys that are valid identifiers.
You might also notice that functions are passed by reference. So all functions are actually anonymous, and are just stored as a value to a certain key or variable.
You can store the names in a separate table.
functions = {}
functionNames = {}
function addFunction(f, name)
table.insert(functions, f)
functionNames[name] = f
end
To get the function, you can use the index. Once you have the function, you can get its name from function_names:
f = functions[3]
name = functionNames[f]
Good luck!
I'm generating some (non-html) documentation for a Lua library that I developed. I will generate the documentation by hand, but I'd appreciate some kind of automation if possible (i.e. generating skeletons for each function so I can fill them in)
I'd like to know if there's a way for lua to know the names of the parameters that a function takes, from outside it.
For example, is there a way to do this in Lua?
function foo(x,y)
... -- any code here
end
print( something ... foo ... something)
-- expected output: "x", "y"
Thanks a lot.
ok,here is the core code:
function getArgs(fun)
local args = {}
local hook = debug.gethook()
local argHook = function( ... )
local info = debug.getinfo(3)
if 'pcall' ~= info.name then return end
for i = 1, math.huge do
local name, value = debug.getlocal(2, i)
if '(*temporary)' == name then
debug.sethook(hook)
error('')
return
end
table.insert(args,name)
end
end
debug.sethook(argHook, "c")
pcall(fun)
return args
end
and you can use like this:
print(getArgs(fun))
Try my bytecode inspector library. In Lua 5.2 you'll be able to use debug.getlocal.
Take a look at debug.getinfo, but you probably need a parser for this task. I don't know of any way to fetch the parameters of a function from within Lua without actually running the function and inspecting its environment table (see debug.debug and debug.getlocal).
function GetArgs(func)
local args = {}
for i = 1, debug.getinfo(func).nparams, 1 do
table.insert(args, debug.getlocal(func, i));
end
return args;
end
function a(bc, de, fg)
end
for k, v in pairs(GetArgs(a)) do
print(k, v)
end
will print
1 bc
2 de
3 fg
Basically we use debug.getinfo to retrieve the nparams attribute (which gives us the information of how many parameters the function takes) and debug.getlocal to access the name of the parameters.
Tested and working with Lua 5.4
Take a look at the luadoc utility. It is sort of like Doxygen, but for Lua. It is intended to allow the documentation to be written in-line with the source code, but it could certainly be used to produce a template of the documentation structure to be fleshed out separately. Of course, the template mechanism will leave you with a maintenance issue down the road...