I'm trying to use in pairs inside a function but it doesn't work, it just prints the first row (key). This is my code:
set = {1,2,3,4};
unset = {5,6,7,8};
function listen(ftype)
if (ftype == [[~]]) then
for num,str in pairs(set) do
return str;
end
end
if (ftype == [[$]]) then
for num,str in pairs(unset) do
return str;
end
end
end
print(listen([[~]])..[[ =:= ]]..listen([[$]]));
If I do something like this..
for num,str in pairs(unset) do
print(str);
end
It works like a charm. That’s exactly what I want but inside a function.
You can build your own iterator:
function double_pair(t1, t2)
local i = 0
return function() i = i + 1
return t1[i] and t1[i] .. " =:= " .. t2[i]
end
end
Then you can use it like this:
for str in double_pair(set, unset) do
print(str)
end
Output:
1 =:= 5
2 =:= 6
3 =:= 7
4 =:= 8
Note that you don't need semicolons to end your statement, unless the statements are in one line and you want to make them clear. And [[ =:= ]] is usually used to build long multi-line strings, normally we choose to use double quote " =:= " or single quote ' =:= '.
A function can't return multiple times. Putting an unconditional return inside a loop is nonsensical - it will never get to the second iteration of the loop.
You are essentially trying to return multiple values from the function. Lua supports that; you could, for instance, just return 1,2,3,4. For an unknown number of return values, you can build them up in a table and call unpack on it, like so:
function listen(ftype)
local result = {}
local num, str
if (ftype == [[~]]) then
for num,str in pairs(set) do
table.insert(result, str)
end
elseif (ftype == [[$]]) then
for num,str in pairs(unset) do
table.insert(result, str)
end
end
return unpack(result)
end
But since your results are already in a couple tables, it would be silly to reconstruct them that way. You can just unpack the originals:
function listen(ftype)
if (ftype == [[~]]) then
return unpack(set)
elseif (ftype == [[$]]) then
return unpack(unset)
end
end
Great. But when you put the function call into an expression like your print statement, it will only return the first value, which puts you back where you started.
So to print out your pairs, you can't avoid having to either:
1) do some iteration outside the function
or
2) do the actual printing inside the function
The cleanest solution is probably a custom iterator, as suggested by #YuHao.
Related
I'm trying to iterate through a table with a variable amount of elements and get all possible combinations, only using every element one time. I've landed on the solution below.
arr = {"a","b","c","d","e","f"}
function tablelen(table)
local count = 0
for _ in pairs(table) do
count = count + 1
end
return count
end
function spellsub(table,start,offset)
local str = table[start]
for i = start+offset, (tablelen(table)+1)-(start+offset) do
str = str..","..table[i+1]
end
return str
end
print(spellsub(arr,1,2)) -- Outputs: "a,d,e" correctly
print(spellsub(arr,2,2)) -- Outputs: "b" supposed to be "b,e,f"
I'm still missing some further functions, but I'm getting stuck with my current code. What is it that I'm missing? It prints correctly the first time but not the second?
A solution with a coroutine iterator called recursively:
local wrap, yield = coroutine.wrap, coroutine.yield
-- This function clones the array t and appends the item new to it.
local function append (t, new)
local clone = {}
for _, item in ipairs (t) do
clone [#clone + 1] = item
end
clone [#clone + 1] = new
return clone
end
--[[
Yields combinations of non-repeating items of tbl.
tbl is the source of items,
sub is a combination of items that all yielded combination ought to contain,
min it the minimum key of items that can be added to yielded combinations.
--]]
local function unique_combinations (tbl, sub, min)
sub = sub or {}
min = min or 1
return wrap (function ()
if #sub > 0 then
yield (sub) -- yield short combination.
end
if #sub < #tbl then
for i = min, #tbl do -- iterate over longer combinations.
for combo in unique_combinations (tbl, append (sub, tbl [i]), i + 1) do
yield (combo)
end
end
end
end)
end
for combo in unique_combinations {'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f'} do
print (table.concat (combo, ', '))
end
For a tables with consecutive integer keys starting at 1 like yours you can simply use the length operator #. Your tablelen function is superfluous.
Using table as a local variable name shadows Lua's table library. I suggest you use tbl or some other name that does not prevent you from using table's methods.
The issue with your code can be solved by printing some values for debugging:
local arr = {"a","b","c","d","e","f"}
function spellsub(tbl,start,offset)
local str = tbl[start]
print("first str:", str)
print(string.format("loop from %d to %d", start+offset, #tbl+1-(start+offset)))
for i = start+offset, (#tbl+1)-(start+offset) do
print(string.format("tbl[%d]: %s", i+1, tbl[i+1]))
str = str..","..tbl[i+1]
end
return str
end
print(spellsub(arr,1,2)) -- Outputs: "a,d,e" correctly
print(spellsub(arr,2,2)) -- Outputs: "b" supposed to be "b,e,f"
prints:
first str: a
loop from 3 to 4
tbl[4]: d
tbl[5]: e
a,d,e
first str: b
loop from 4 to 3
b
As you see your second loop does not ran as the start value is already greater than the limit value. Hence you only print the first value b
I don't understand how your code is related to what you want to achieve so I'll leave it up to you to fix it.
I am writing a generic Log() function in lua which utilizes lua print function:
Log (variable, 'String: %s ', str, 'Word: %d', w)
Currently I'm using below approach:
print(string.format (variable, 'String: %s ', str, 'Word: %d', w))
I tried something like:
Log = function(...) begin
return print(string.format(...))
end
But it doesn't work, Is this correct approach? Or Is there any better more generic way to get this done?
If you just want to print a sequence of values, you can do that with print:
print(variable, 'String: %s ', str, 'Word: %d', w)
What you seem to want is something more complicated. Your algorithm seems to be:
For each argument:
If the argument is not a string, then convert it to a string and print it.
If the argument is a string, figure out how many % patterns it has (let us call this number k). Pass string.format the current argument string and the following k parameters, printing the resulting string. Advance k parameters.
That's a much more complicated algorithm than can be done in a one-line system.
Using Lua 5.3, here's what such a function would look like (note: barely tested code):
function Log(...)
local values = {}
local params = table.pack(...)
local curr_ix = 1
while (curr_ix <= params.n) do
local value = params[curr_ix]
if(type(value) == "string") then
--Count the number of `%` characters, *except* for
--sequential `%%`.
local num_formats = 0
for _ in value:gmatch("%%[^%%]") do
num_formats = num_formats + 1
end
value = string.format(table.unpack(params, curr_ix, num_formats + curr_ix))
curr_ix = curr_ix + num_formats
end
values[#values + 1] = value
curr_ix = curr_ix + 1
end
print(table.unpack(values))
end
I don't think your current approach works, because the first argument of string.format expects the format specifier, not the rest of the arguments.
Anyway, this is the way to combine formatting and printing together:
Log = function(...)
return print(string.format(...))
end
And call it like this:
Log("String: %s Number: %d", 'hello' , 42)
Also, it might be better to make the format specifier argument more explicit, and use io.write instead of print to get more control over printing:
function Log(fmt, ...)
return io.write(string.format(fmt, ...))
end
I'm confused with the concepts of stateless iterators. As an exercise I write an iterator to print all non-empty substrings of a given string. The code is as follows.
local function iter(state, i)
local str = state.str
if type(str) ~= "string" or str == "" then return nil end
if state.ending > #str then return nil end
local start = state.start
local ending = state.ending
if start == ending then
state.ending = ending + 1
state.start = 1
else
state.start = start + 1
end
return string.sub(str, start, ending)
end
function allSubstrings(str)
return iter, { str = str, start = 1, ending = 1 }, nil
end
for substr in allSubstrings("abcd123") do
print(substr)
end
I use a table { str = str, start = 1, ending = 1 } as the so-called invariant state, but I have to change the fields in this table in the iter local function. So is this iterator stateless or with complex states? If it's not stateless, is there a way to implement this functionality with a stateless iterator?
Thank you.
The PIL-chapter about stateless iterators states:
As the name implies, a stateless iterator is an iterator that does not keep any state by itself. Therefore, we may use the same stateless iterator in multiple loops, avoiding the cost of creating new closures.
In code that means that both for loops in:
f, s, var = pairs( t )
for k,v in f, s, var do print( k, v ) end
for k,v in f, s, var do print( k, v ) end
should produce the same output. This only works if neither the invariant state s nor any upvalues of the iterator function f change during the iteration, or else the second for loop would have different starting conditions than the first loop.
So, no, your iterator is not a stateless iterator because you change the invariant state during iteration.
There is a way to make your iterator stateless (and the popular Lua library luafun uses this technique extensively): keep all mutable state in the loop control variable var (even if you need to allocate a fresh table in each allocation step):
local function iter( str, var )
if type( str ) ~= "string" or str == "" then return nil end
if var[ 2 ] > #str then return nil end
local start, ending = var[ 1 ], var[ 2 ]
if start == ending then
return { 1, ending+1 }, string.sub( str, start, ending )
else
return { start+1, ending }, string.sub( str, start, ending )
end
end
function allSubstrings2( str )
return iter, str, { 1, 1 }
end
for _,substr in allSubstrings2( "abcd123" ) do
print( substr )
end
Drawbacks are that the first iteration variable var (the loop control variable) has no useful meaning for the user of the iterator, and since you have to allocate a table for each iteration step, "avoiding the cost of creating new closures" for another loop doesn't matter much.
luafun does it anyway, because it does not have the ability to recreate an iterator tuple (it is passed via function arguments from outside code), and for some algorithms you absolutely need to run the same iteration multiple times.
An alternative to this approach would be to concentrate all mutable state in the "invariant state" s (all upvalues to f must be immutable), and provide a way to copy/clone this state for later iterations:
f, s, var = allSubstrings("abcd123")
s2 = clonestate( s )
for str in f, s, var do print( str ) end
for str in f, s2, var do print( str ) end
This is still not a stateless iterator, but it is more memory-efficient than the stateless iterator with heap-allocated loop control variable, and it allows you to restart an iteration.
This is not a stateless iterator, and is indeed an iterator with complex state.
In stateless iterators there is only one control variable, and it should be treated as a pure value throughout the iterator.
You could consider using closures to implement this. Not quite stateless, but does use upvalues over table lookups, which should be more efficient.
local function allSubstrings (str)
if type(str) ~= "string" or str == "" then
return function () end -- NOP out on first iteration
end
local length = #str
local start, ending = 1, 1
return function ()
if ending > length then return nil end
local st, ed = start, ending
if start == ending then
ending = ending + 1
start = 1
else
start = start + 1
end
return string.sub(str, st, ed)
end
end
for substr in allSubstrings("abcd123") do
print(substr)
end
PIL book calls that 'Iterators with Complex State'
http://www.lua.org/pil/7.4.html
I have this piece of code in C++ and i want to know how can i write some codes that replace switch statement in Lua because i face many problems and i need to use this statement.
int choice;
do// loop
{
cout<<"\n >>> The General Menu <<< \n";
cout << endl;
cout<< " press (1) to Add "<<endl;
cout<< " press (2) to Save "<<endl;
cout<< " press (3) to Quit " << endl;
cout<< endl;
cout<< "Enter your choice please (1/2/3): ";
cin>>choice;
switch(choice)
{
case 1:
add();
break;
case 2:
save();
break;
default:
cout<<" The program has been terminated "<<endl;
cout<<" Thank you! \n";
}
} while (choice != 3);
}
The statement has been used inside a do..while loop.
In general, if you want a switch statement in Lua, what you ought to be doing is building a table. For your simple case of choice that could be 1, 2, or fail, a simple if statement with a few conditions is sufficient. For more complex cases, a table of functions should be employed:
local c_tbl =
{
[1] = add,
[2] = save,
}
local func = c_tbl[choice]
if(func) then
func()
else
print " The program has been terminated."
print " Thank you!";
end
You can use lexical scoping to allow the functions in the table to be able to access local variables, just as if the code was written inline.
Try this one (click here to run the script in a Lua compiler), Hope the code is self-explanatory ;-) and
resembles the same pseudo code format..!!
print("enter your choice : ")
mychoice = io.read()
switch = function (choice)
-- accepts both number as well as string
choice = choice and tonumber(choice) or choice -- returns a number if the choic is a number or string.
-- Define your cases
case =
{
[1] = function ( ) -- case 1 :
print("your choice is Number 1 ") -- code block
end, -- break statement
add = function ( ) -- case 'add' :
print("your choice is string add ") -- code block
end, -- break statement
['+'] = function ( ) -- case '+' :
print("your choice is char + ") -- code block
end, -- break statement
default = function ( ) -- default case
print(" your choice is din't match any of those specified cases")
end, -- u cant exclude end hear :-P
}
-- execution section
if case[choice] then
case[choice]()
else
case["default"]()
end
end
-- Now you can use it as a regular function. Tadaaa..!!
switch(mychoice)
Lua:
if choice == 1
then add()
elseif choice == 2
then save()
else print "The program has been terminated\nThank you!"
end
one more version of switcher (without initializing table as variable):
local case=2;
local result=({[1]="case1", [2]="case2", 3="case3"})[case];
print (result); --> case2
While simply creating a table indexed by cases with functions as elements is most probably the fastest approach, there is this solution I've made which IMO has better code readability:
function switch(element)
local Table = {
["Value"] = element,
["DefaultFunction"] = nil,
["Functions"] = {}
}
Table.case = function(testElement, callback)
Table.Functions[testElement] = callback
return Table
end
Table.default = function(callback)
Table.DefaultFunction = callback
return Table
end
Table.process = function()
local Case = Table.Functions[Table.Value]
if Case then
Case()
elseif Table.DefaultFunction then
Table.DefaultFunction()
end
end
return Table
end
Example Use:
switch(Player:GetName())
.case("Kate", function() print("This player's name rhymes with Fate")end)
.case("Tod", function() print("This player's name rhymes with Cod") end)
.default(function() print("This player's name is not Kate or Tod") end)
.process()
I encountered this issue with functions that would take different parameters - something which the other answers don't handle well.
I solved that with anonymous functions.
-- call the relevant execution based on its opcode
local instructions = {
[01] = function () self:perform_add(table.unpack(valargs)) end,
[02] = function () self:perform_multiply(table.unpack(valargs)) end,
[03] = function () self:perform_store_input(outputargs[1]) end,
[04] = function () self:perform_output(valargs[1]) end,
[05] = function () self:perform_jnz(table.unpack(valargs)) end,
[06] = function () self:perform_jz(table.unpack(valargs)) end,
[07] = function () self:perform_less_than(table.unpack(valargs)) end,
[08] = function () self:perform_equals(table.unpack(valargs)) end,
[99] = function () self:perform_exit() end,
}
local instr = instructions[opcode]
if (instr) then
instr()
else
print("No instruction for opcode " .. opcode)
end
The actions I want to take in my different switch cases are all defined as anonymous functions in a table. The keys used (e.g. 08 here) are the values our variable to switch on might assume (opcode here). The default case of the switch statement happens in my else clause. There is no requirement for a break equivalent - but if you want to have one case continue with the next you would have to call it explicitly.
Reply to comment asking for clarification:
You're right that this example is not complete. You can find my usage here when I did adventofcode 2019 day 7. I can try answer your questions but I never touched lua before, and never after. valargs is a table of arguments because different functions here take different numbers of arguments. But that is not necessarily relevant to the question. Basically, I'm just calling functions here.
In my example, self exists because I defined the functions on a local (and did some weird changes as outlined here). The relevant code parts:
-- a "class"
local IntComputer = {}
function IntComputer:perform_exit()
self.program_ended = true
end
function IntComputer:perform_add(a, b, target)
print(" " .. a .. " + " .. b .. " => " .. target)
self:set_value(target, a+b)
end
If you want switch as a function that is callable, you could use something funny with the callback feature:
(The example below is a switch statement based on the variable type, but you could make the table index into whatever you want to test it for. Just change the return statement of the switch function to not test for type(case))
(This is essentially a lazy table lookup much like Python's dictionary feature but each element is a function)
#!/usr/bin/lua
-- Callback switch statement:
local function switch(a, case)
-- Local variable instead of function(a) on every case:
local value = a
-- Cases list:
local switchcase = {}
-- Cases:
switchcase["string"] = function()
return (tostring(value) .. " is a string")
end
switchcase["number"] = function()
return tostring(value .. " is a number")
end
switchcase["boolean"] = function()
return (tostring(avalue) .. " is a boolean")
end
return switchcase[type(case)](a)
end
local value = 5
print(switch(value,value)) --> 5 is a number
local value = "test"
print(switch(value,value)) --> test is a string
local value = true
print(switch(value,value)) --> true is a boolean
I don't know the performance of this code compared to the two answers given above, but using local variables ought to make it quick enough for repeated use. If you make your switch function in the global scope it could become a standard function for your project to be used.
Here's another fun method using loadstring() and a table lookup.
switch = function(cases,args)
if (cases[args] == nil) then return args else return assert(loadstring ('return ' .. cases[args]))() end
end
local case = 2
local result = switch({
[1] = "2^" .. case,
[2] = string.format("2^%i",case),
[3] = tostring(2^case)
},
case
)
print(result) --> 4
This method is somewhat dangerous to use since loadstring() is similar to Python's eval() function.
I found it ugly to write "function(x)" on every case in the examples provided by the Lua wiki. This is a neat way.
The "default" case is the "return args" part of the function.
I use this code :
while true do local tmpswitch1 = exp ; --[[ switch <exp> do ]]
if tmpswitch1 == exp1 then --[[ case <exp1> : ]]
-- do something
break
end ;if tmpswitch1 == exp2 then --[[ case <exp2> : ]]
-- do something
break
end ; --[[ default : ]]
-- do something
break ; end --[[ switch tmpswitch1 ]]
function case(i,d) return function(t) return t[i] or d end end
x='two'
r=case(x) {
one=1,
two=2,
three=3,
}
case(r,function() print "default" end) {
[1]=function() print "one" end,
[2]=function() print "two" end,
[3]=function() print "three" end,
}()
I'd like to format a number to look like 1,234 or 1,234,432 or 123,456,789, you get the idea. I tried doing this as follows:
function reformatint(i)
local length = string.len(i)
for v = 1, math.floor(length/3) do
for k = 1, 3 do
newint = string.sub(mystring, -k*v)
end
newint = ','..newint
end
return newint
end
As you can see, a failed attempt, my problem is that I can't figure out what the error is because the program I am running this in refuses to report an error back to me.
Here's a function that takes negative numbers, and fractional parts into account:
function format_int(number)
local i, j, minus, int, fraction = tostring(number):find('([-]?)(%d+)([.]?%d*)')
-- reverse the int-string and append a comma to all blocks of 3 digits
int = int:reverse():gsub("(%d%d%d)", "%1,")
-- reverse the int-string back remove an optional comma and put the
-- optional minus and fractional part back
return minus .. int:reverse():gsub("^,", "") .. fraction
end
assert(format_int(1234) == '1,234')
assert(format_int(1234567) == '1,234,567')
assert(format_int(123456789) == '123,456,789')
assert(format_int(123456789.1234) == '123,456,789.1234')
assert(format_int(-123456789.) == '-123,456,789')
assert(format_int(-123456789.1234) == '-123,456,789.1234')
assert(format_int('-123456789.1234') == '-123,456,789.1234')
print('All tests passed!')
Well, let's take this from the top down. First of all, it's failing because you've got a reference error:
...
for k = 1, 3 do
newint = string.sub(mystring, -k*v) -- What is 'mystring'?
end
...
Most likely you want i to be there, not mystring.
Second, while replacing mystring with i will fix the errors, it still won't work correctly.
> =reformatint(100)
,100
> =reformatint(1)
,000
That's obviously not right. It seems like what you're trying to do is go through the string, and build up the new string with the commas added. But there are a couple of problems...
function reformatint(i)
local length = string.len(i)
for v = 1, math.floor(length/3) do
for k = 1, 3 do -- What is this inner loop for?
newint = string.sub(mystring, -k*v) -- This chops off the end of
-- your string only
end
newint = ','..newint -- This will make your result have a ',' at
-- the beginning, no matter what
end
return newint
end
With some rework, you can get a function that work.
function reformatint(integer)
for i = 1, math.floor((string.len(integer)-1) / 3) do
integer = string.sub(integer, 1, -3*i-i) ..
',' ..
string.sub(integer, -3*i-i+1)
end
return integer
end
The function above seems to work correctly. However, it's fairly convoluted... Might want to make it more readable.
As a side note, a quick google search finds a function that has already been made for this:
function comma_value(amount)
local formatted = amount
while true do
formatted, k = string.gsub(formatted, "^(-?%d+)(%d%d%d)", '%1,%2')
if (k==0) then
break
end
end
return formatted
end
You can do without loops:
function numWithCommas(n)
return tostring(math.floor(n)):reverse():gsub("(%d%d%d)","%1,")
:gsub(",(%-?)$","%1"):reverse()
end
assert(numWithCommas(100000) == "100,000")
assert(numWithCommas(100) == "100")
assert(numWithCommas(-100000) == "-100,000")
assert(numWithCommas(10000000) == "10,000,000")
assert(numWithCommas(10000000.00) == "10,000,000")
The second gsub is needed to avoid -,100 being generated.
I remember discussing about this in the LÖVE forums ... let me look for it...
Found it!
This will work with positive integers:
function reformatInt(i)
return tostring(i):reverse():gsub("%d%d%d", "%1,"):reverse():gsub("^,", "")
end
On the link above you may read details about implementation.