Related
I was doing some anti metamethod hooks and I was curious on what metamethod is called in the code below between the parentheses
local test = "random string"
if (test == "random string") then --// What metamethod if any is being called here?
print("equals")
end
I've done some research and took a look at the __eq metamethod, but that is only called when comparing two tables which isn't what I'm tryna do.
If there isn't any metamethod being called then how would I protect the if condition?
-- Update --
What if I put every string inside of a table for example:
local _Table1 = {"Test1", "Test2"}
local _Table2 = {"Test1", "Test2"}
for Index, Value in next, _Table1 do
if Value == _Table2[Index] then
print("Tables Match!")
elseif Value ~= _Table2[Index]
print("Tables Don't Match!")
end
end
I'm not doing any string converting here, but I'm showing what I could try and do for a simple anti tamper.
The only operator in the parenthesized expression is ==. Thus the only metamethod in question is __eq. The Lua Reference Manual states the following on __eq:
__eq: 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.
Your values are strings and thus no metamethod will be called - even if you were to modify the string metatable to alter __eq.
Strings in Lua are always interned, so this comparison will always run in constant time. Since it is a primitive comparison, it can't possibly throw an error. No metamethod is called.
There is nothing to protect from: No possible performance issue / DoS vulnerability, no possible fancy side effects or code execution, no possible error.
(Highly theoretically: If a debug hook running every n instructions is registered, it might fire as the comparison is executed. You can hardly "protect" against a debug hook though.)
But it makes sense, for example a check against the Length.
A check against the Content seems also possible but need more lines.
And i like one liner in Lua Standalone to show...
> _VERSION
Lua 5.4
> eqtab = setmetatable({"Test1", "Test2"}, {__eq = function(left, right) print('SIMON SAYS:') return(#left == #right) end})
> eqtab == {1}
SIMON SAYS:
false
> eqtab == {}
SIMON SAYS:
false
> eqtab == {"Test1", "Test2"}
SIMON SAYS:
true
> eqtab == {1, 2}
SIMON SAYS:
true
What are the benefits and drawbacks of the ?: operator as opposed to the standard if-else statement. The obvious ones being:
Conditional ?: Operator
Shorter and more concise when dealing with direct value comparisons and assignments
Doesn't seem to be as flexible as the if/else construct
Standard If/Else
Can be applied to more situations (such as function calls)
Often are unnecessarily long
Readability seems to vary for each depending on the statement. For a little while after first being exposed to the ?: operator, it took me some time to digest exactly how it worked. Would you recommend using it wherever possible, or sticking to if/else given that I work with many non-programmers?
I would basically recommend using it only when the resulting statement is extremely short and represents a significant increase in conciseness over the if/else equivalent without sacrificing readability.
Good example:
int result = Check() ? 1 : 0;
Bad example:
int result = FirstCheck() ? 1 : SecondCheck() ? 1 : ThirdCheck() ? 1 : 0;
This is pretty much covered by the other answers, but "it's an expression" doesn't really explain why that is so useful...
In languages like C++ and C#, you can define local readonly fields (within a method body) using them. This is not possible with a conventional if/then statement because the value of a readonly field has to be assigned within that single statement:
readonly int speed = (shiftKeyDown) ? 10 : 1;
is not the same as:
readonly int speed;
if (shifKeyDown)
speed = 10; // error - can't assign to a readonly
else
speed = 1; // error
In a similar way you can embed a tertiary expression in other code. As well as making the source code more compact (and in some cases more readable as a result) it can also make the generated machine code more compact and efficient:
MoveCar((shiftKeyDown) ? 10 : 1);
...may generate less code than having to call the same method twice:
if (shiftKeyDown)
MoveCar(10);
else
MoveCar(1);
Of course, it's also a more convenient and concise form (less typing, less repetition, and can reduce the chance of errors if you have to duplicate chunks of code in an if/else). In clean "common pattern" cases like this:
object thing = (reference == null) ? null : reference.Thing;
... it is simply faster to read/parse/understand (once you're used to it) than the long-winded if/else equivalent, so it can help you to 'grok' code faster.
Of course, just because it is useful does not mean it is the best thing to use in every case. I'd advise only using it for short bits of code where the meaning is clear (or made more clear) by using ?: - if you use it in more complex code, or nest ternary operators within each other it can make code horribly difficult to read.
I usually choose a ternary operator when I'd have a lot of duplicate code otherwise.
if (a > 0)
answer = compute(a, b, c, d, e);
else
answer = compute(-a, b, c, d, e);
With a ternary operator, this could be accomplished with the following.
answer = compute(a > 0 ? a : -a, b, c, d, e);
I find it particularly helpful when doing web development if I want to set a variable to a value sent in the request if it is defined or to some default value if it is not.
A really cool usage is:
x = foo ? 1 :
bar ? 2 :
baz ? 3 :
4;
Sometimes it can make the assignment of a bool value easier to read at first glance:
// With
button.IsEnabled = someControl.HasError ? false : true;
// Without
button.IsEnabled = !someControl.HasError;
I'd recommend limiting the use of the ternary(?:) operator to simple single line assignment if/else logic. Something resembling this pattern:
if(<boolCondition>) {
<variable> = <value>;
}
else {
<variable> = <anotherValue>;
}
Could be easily converted to:
<variable> = <boolCondition> ? <value> : <anotherValue>;
I would avoid using the ternary operator in situations that require if/else if/else, nested if/else, or if/else branch logic that results in the evaluation of multiple lines. Applying the ternary operator in these situations would likely result in unreadable, confusing, and unmanageable code. Hope this helps.
The conditional operator is great for short conditions, like this:
varA = boolB ? valC : valD;
I use it occasionally because it takes less time to write something that way... unfortunately, this branching can sometimes be missed by another developer browsing over your code. Plus, code isn't usually that short, so I usually help readability by putting the ? and : on separate lines, like this:
doSomeStuffToSomething(shouldSomethingBeDone()
? getTheThingThatNeedsStuffDone()
: getTheOtherThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
However, the big advantage to using if/else blocks (and why I prefer them) is that it's easier to come in later and add some additional logic to the branch,
if (shouldSomethingBeDone()) {
doSomeStuffToSomething(getTheThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
doSomeAdditionalStuff();
} else {
doSomeStuffToSomething(getTheOtherThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
}
or add another condition:
if (shouldSomethingBeDone()) {
doSomeStuffToSomething(getTheThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
doSomeAdditionalStuff();
} else if (shouldThisOtherThingBeDone()){
doSomeStuffToSomething(getTheOtherThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
}
So, in the end, it's about convenience for you now (shorter to use :?) vs. convenience for you (and others) later. It's a judgment call... but like all other code-formatting issues, the only real rule is to be consistent, and be visually courteous to those who have to maintain (or grade!) your code.
(all code eye-compiled)
One thing to recognize when using the ternary operator that it is an expression not a statement.
In functional languages like scheme the distinction doesn't exists:
(if (> a b) a b)
Conditional ?: Operator
"Doesn't seem to be as flexible as the if/else construct"
In functional languages it is.
When programming in imperative languages I apply the ternary operator in situations where I typically would use expressions (assignment, conditional statements, etc).
While the above answers are valid, and I agree with readability being important, there are 2 further points to consider:
In C#6, you can have expression-bodied methods.
This makes it particularly concise to use the ternary:
string GetDrink(DayOfWeek day)
=> day == DayOfWeek.Friday
? "Beer" : "Tea";
Behaviour differs when it comes to implicit type conversion.
If you have types T1 and T2 that can both be implicitly converted to T, then the below does not work:
T GetT() => true ? new T1() : new T2();
(because the compiler tries to determine the type of the ternary expression, and there is no conversion between T1 and T2.)
On the other hand, the if/else version below does work:
T GetT()
{
if (true) return new T1();
return new T2();
}
because T1 is converted to T and so is T2
If I'm setting a value and I know it will always be one line of code to do so, I typically use the ternary (conditional) operator. If there's a chance my code and logic will change in the future, I use an if/else as it's more clear to other programmers.
Of further interest to you may be the ?? operator.
The advantage of the conditional operator is that it is an operator. In other words, it returns a value. Since if is a statement, it cannot return a value.
There is some performance benefit of using the the ? operator in eg. MS Visual C++, but this is a really a compiler specific thing. The compiler can actually optimize out the conditional branch in some cases.
The scenario I most find myself using it is for defaulting values and especially in returns
return someIndex < maxIndex ? someIndex : maxIndex;
Those are really the only places I find it nice, but for them I do.
Though if you're looking for a boolean this might sometimes look like an appropriate thing to do:
bool hey = whatever < whatever_else ? true : false;
Because it's so easy to read and understand, but that idea should always be tossed for the more obvious:
bool hey = (whatever < whatever_else);
If you need multiple branches on the same condition, use an if:
if (A == 6)
f(1, 2, 3);
else
f(4, 5, 6);
If you need multiple branches with different conditions, then if statement count would snowball, you'll want to use the ternary:
f( (A == 6)? 1: 4, (B == 6)? 2: 5, (C == 6)? 3: 6 );
Also, you can use the ternary operator in initialization.
const int i = (A == 6)? 1 : 4;
Doing that with if is very messy:
int i_temp;
if (A == 6)
i_temp = 1;
else
i_temp = 4;
const int i = i_temp;
You can't put the initialization inside the if/else, because it changes the scope. But references and const variables can only be bound at initialization.
The ternary operator can be included within an rvalue, whereas an if-then-else cannot; on the other hand, an if-then-else can execute loops and other statements, whereas the ternary operator can only execute (possibly void) rvalues.
On a related note, the && and || operators allow some execution patterns which are harder to implement with if-then-else. For example, if one has several functions to call and wishes to execute a piece of code if any of them fail, it can be done nicely using the && operator. Doing it without that operator will either require redundant code, a goto, or an extra flag variable.
With C# 7, you can use the new ref locals feature to simplify the conditional assignment of ref-compatible variables. So now, not only can you do:
int i = 0;
T b = default(T), c = default(T);
// initialization of C#7 'ref-local' variable using a conditional r-value⁽¹⁾
ref T a = ref (i == 0 ? ref b : ref c);
...but also the extremely wonderful:
// assignment of l-value⁽²⁾ conditioned by C#7 'ref-locals'
(i == 0 ? ref b : ref c) = a;
That line of code assigns the value of a to either b or c, depending on the value of i.
Notes
1. r-value is the right-hand side of an assignment, the value that gets assigned.
2. l-value is the left-hand side of an assignment, the variable that receives the assigned value.
I want to know how to get the table hex id. I know that doing:
local some_var = {}
print (some_var)
the result is (for instance):
table: 0x21581c0
I want the hex without the table: string. I know that maybe some of you suggest me to make a regular expression (or something similar) to remove those chars, but I want to avoid that, and just get the 0x21581c0
Thanks
This is simpler and works for all types that are associated with pointers:
local function getId(t)
return string.format("%p", t)
end
print("string:", getId("hi"))
print("table:", getId({}))
print("userdata:", getId(io.stdin))
print("function:", getId(print))
print("number:", getId(1))
print("boolean:", getId(false))
print("nil:", getId(nil))
Result:
string: 0x0109f04638
table: 0x0109f0a270
userdata: 0x01098076c8
function: 0x0109806018
number: NULL
boolean: NULL
nil: NULL
In the standard implementation, there is the global 'print' variable that refers to a standard function that calls, through the global variable 'tostring', a standard function described here. The stanard 'tostring' function is the only way to retrieve the hexadecimal number it shows for a table.
Unfortunately, there is no configuration for either of the functions to do anything differently for all tables.
Nonetheless, there are several points for modification. You can create you own function and call that every time instead, or point either of the the global variables print or tostring to you own functions. Or, set a __tostring metamethod on each table you need tostring to return a different answer for. The advantage to this is it gets you the format you want with only one setup step. The disadvantage is that you have to set up each table.
local function simplifyTableToString(t)
local answer = tostring(t):gsub("table: ", "", 1)
local mt = getmetatable(t)
if not mt then
mt = {}
setmetatable(t, mt)
end
mt.__tostring = function() return answer end
end
local a = {}
local b = {}
print(a, b)
simplifyTableToString(a)
print(a, b)
Without complex patterns, you can just search for the first space, and grab the substring of what follows.
function get_mem_addr (object)
local str = tostring(object)
return str:sub(str:find(' ') + 1)
end
print(get_mem_addr({})) -- 0x109638
print(get_mem_addr(function () end)) -- 0x108cf8
This function will work with tables and functions, but expect errors if you pass it anything else.
Or you can use a little type checking:
function get_mem_addr (o)
return tostring(o):sub(type(o):len() + 3)
end
The table id stated by the OP is invalid in the version of Lua I am using (5.1 in Roblox). A valid ID is length 8, not 9 as in your example. Either way, just use string.sub to get the sub-string you are after.
string.sub(tostring({}), 8)
The reason is, 'table: ' is 7 characters long, so we take from index 8 through the end of the string which returns the hex value.
I've noticed that strings, numbers, bool and nil data seem to be straight forward to work with. But when it comes to functions, tables, etc. you get a reference instead of the actual object.
Is there a name for this phenomenon? Is there terminology that describes the distinction between the way these 2 sets of types are handled?
a = "hi"
b = 1
c = true
d = nil
e = {"joe", "mike"}
f = function () end
g = coroutine.create(function () print("hi") end)
print(a) --> hi
print(b) --> 1
print(c) --> true
print(d) --> nil
print(e) --> table: 0x103350
print(f) --> function: 0x1035a0
print(g) --> thread: 0x103d30
What you're seeing here is an attempt by the compiler to return a string representation of the object. For simple object types the __tostring implementation is provided already, but for other more complex types there is no intuitive way of returning a string representation.
See Lua: give custom userdata a tostring method for more information which might help!
.Net (Microsoft Visual Basic, Visual C++ and C#) would describe them as value types and reference types, where reference types refer to a value by reference and value types hold the actual values.
I don't think lua puts too much thought into it given that it's supposed to be a simpler interpreted language and ultimately it doesn't matter as much because lua is a fairly weakly typed language (ie it doesn't enforce type safety beyond throwing an error when you try to use operations on types they can't be used on).
Either way, most programmers in my experience understand them as 'value types' and 'reference types', so I'd say they're the two terms it's best to stick with.
In Lua, numbers are values, everything else is accessible by reference only. But the different behavior on print is just because there's no way to actually print functions (and while tables could have a default behavior for print, they don't - possibly because they're allowed to have cyclic references).
What you are seeing is the behavior of the print function. It will its arguments by using tostring on them. print could be implemented by using io.write like this (simplified a bit):
function print(...)
local args = {n = select('#',...), ...}
for i=1,args.n do
io.write(tostring(args[i]), '\t')
end
io.write('\n')
end
You should notice the call to tostring. By default it returns the representation of numbers, booleans and strings. Since there is no sane default way to convert other types to a string, it only displays the type and a useless internal pointer to the object (so that you can differentiate instances). You can view the source here.
You will be surprised, but there is no value/reference distinction in Lua. :-)
Please read here and here.
In Lua, there seem to be two ways of appending an element to an array:
table.insert(t, i)
and
t[#t+1] = i
Which should I use, and why?
Which to use is a matter of preference and circumstance: as the # length operator was introduced in version 5.1, t[#t+1] = i will not work in Lua 5.0, whereas table.insert has been present since 5.0 and will work in both. On the other hand, t[#t+1] = i uses exclusively language-level operators, wheras table.insert involves a function (which has a slight amount of overhead to look up and call and depends on the table module in the environment).
In the second edition of Programming in Lua (an update of the Lua 5.0-oriented first edition), Roberto Ierusalimschy (the designer of Lua) states that he prefers t[#t+1] = i, as it's more visible.
Also, depending on your use case, the answer may be "neither". See the manual entry on the behavior of the length operator:
If the array has "holes" (that is, nil values between other non-nil values), then #t can be any of the indices that directly precedes a nil value (that is, it may consider any such nil value as the end of the array).
As such, if you're dealing with an array with holes, using either one (table.insert uses the length operator) may "append" your value to a lower index in the array than you want. How you define the size of your array in this scenario is up to you, and, again, depends on preference and circumstance: you can use table.maxn (disappearing in 5.2 but trivial to write), you can keep an n field in the table and update it when necessary, you can wrap the table in a metatable, or you could use another solution that better fits your situation (in a loop, a local tsize in the scope immediately outside the loop will often suffice).
The following is slightly on the amusing side but possibly with a grain of aesthetics. Even though there are obvious reasons that mytable:operation() is not supplied like mystring:operation(), one can easily roll one's own variant, and get a third notation if desired.
Table = {}
Table.__index = table
function Table.new()
local t = {}
setmetatable(t, Table)
return t
end
mytable = Table.new()
mytable:insert('Hello')
mytable:insert('World')
for _, s in ipairs(mytable) do
print(s)
end
insert can insert arbitrarily (as its name states), it only defaults to #t + 1, where as t[#t + 1] = i will always append to the (end of the) table. see section 5.5 in the lua manual.
'#' operator only use indexed key table.
t = {1, 2 ,3 ,4, 5, x=1, y=2}
at above code
print(#t) --> print 5 not 7
'#' operator whenever not using.
If you want to '#' operator, then check it to table elements type.
Insert function can using any type use.But element count to work slow than '#'