I am learning Lua from a book, and I am NOT a programmer. I am trying to save a table of data to a file using the following functions (that were copied directly from the book), but the function is getting an error when trying to get a string from _G[resTable]. Why?
function readFromFile(filename,resTable)
local hfile = io.open(filename)
if hfile == nil then return end
local results = {} -why is this table here?
local a = 1
for line in hfile:lines() do-- debug shows this loop doesn't run (no lines in hfile?)
_G[resTable[a]] = line
a = a + 1
end
end
function writeToFile(filename, resTable)
local hfile = io.open(filename, "w")
if hfile == nil then return end
local i
for i=1, #resTable do
hfile:write(_G[resTable[i]])--bad argument #1 to 'write' (string expected, got nil)
end
end
'writeToFile" gets an error when trying to :write to _G[resTable[i]]. In the two previous functions listed here, I don't understand why they are referencing _G[resTable[i]] since I don't see any code that is writing to _G.
So here is the order of execution:
local aryTable = {
"Score",
"Lives",
"Health",
}
readFromFile("datafile", aryTable)
writeToFile("datafile", aryTable)
and I get an error:
bad argument #1 to 'write' (string expected, got nil)
stack traceback:
[C]: in function 'write'
test.lua:45: in function 'writeToFile'
test.lua:82: in main chunk
Apparently the author has implemented a way of saving a list of global variables to file and restore them.
The function writeToFile expects a filename and a list of global variables names (resTable). Then it opens a the filename for writing and iterates over the provided names:
for i=1, #resTable do
hfile:write(_G[resTable[i]])
end
in this loop resTable[i] is the i-th name and _G[resTable[i]] is the corresponding value, taken from the table _G, which stores all the globals. If a global with that name is not defined, _G[resTable[i]] will return nil, which is the cause of the failure you experienced. Thus you must provide a resTable that is filled with names of existing globals to avoid this error.
Apart from this, the serialization strategy of the author is really naive, since it handles only variables with string values. In fact by saving the variables to file like that the type information is lost, thus a variable having the value "100" (a string) and another with value 100 (a number) will be stored the same on disk.
The problem is evident analyzing the readFromFile function. After opening the file for reading, it scans it line by line, creating a new variable for each name mentioned in its resTable list:
local a = 1
for line in hfile:lines() do
_G[resTable[a]] = line
a = a + 1
end
the problem is manyfold:
the loop variable line will always have a string value, thus the recreated globals will be all strings, even if they were numbers originally;
it assumes that the variables are recreated in the same order, thus you must provide the same names in resTable you used when you saved the file;
it assumes that the values are stored one per line, but this is a false assumption, since the writeToFile function doesn't write a newline character after each value;
Moreover that local results = {} is useless and in both functions the file handle hfile is not closed. This latter is very bad practice: it could waste system resources and if your script fails part of the supposedly written data could never make its way to disk, since it may be still stuck in some buffer. File handles are automatically closed when the script ends, but only if it ends in a sane way.
Unless you did some error in pasting the code or omitted significant parts of it or the book is building some example incrementally, I dare say it is fairly crappy.
If you want a quick and dirty way to save and retrieve some globals you could use this:
function writeToFile( filename, resTable )
local hfile = io.open(filename, "w")
if hfile == nil then return end
for _, name in ipairs( resTable ) do
local value = _G[name]
if value ~= nil then
hfile:write( name, " = ")
local vtype = type( value )
if vtype == 'string' then
hfile:write( string.format( "%q", value ) )
elseif vtype == 'number' or vtype == 'boolean' then
hfile:write( tostring( value ) )
else
-- do nothing - unsupported type
end
hfile:write( "\n" )
end
end
hfile:close()
end
readFromFile = dofile
It saves the globals as a Lua script and reads them back by executing the script using Lua dofile function. Its main limitation is that it can only save strings, booleans an numbers, but usually this is enough while learning.
You can test it with the following statements:
a = 10
b = "20"
c = "hello"
d = true
print( a, b, c, d )
writeToFile( "datafile", { "a", "b", "c", "d" } )
a, b, c, d = nil
print( a, b, c, d )
readFromFile( "datafile" )
print( a, b, c, d )
If you need more advanced serialization techniques you can refer to Lua WIKI page on table serialization.
Those aren't generalized "read/write any table from/to any file" functions. They apparently expect the name of a global table as an argument, not a [reference to a local] table itself. They look like the kind of one-off solution to a very specific problem that tends to show up in books. :-)
Your functions shouldn't be doing anything with _G. I don't have an API reference handy, but the read loop should be doing something like
resTable[a] = line
and the write loop would be doing
hfile:write(resTable[i])
Throw out that local "results" table too. :-)
This code reads and writes data from a file into global variables whose names are specified in aryTable. Since your file is empty, readFromFile does not actually set the variable values. And then writeToFile fails when trying to get the variable values, because they haven't been set.
Try putting data in the file so that the variables do get set, or set the variable values yourself before writing them to the file (e.g. Score = 10, etc.)
Related
I'm reviewing some toy examples from Lua and I found the following one over there with respect to environments:
M = {} -- the module
complex = {} -- global complex numbers registry
mt = {} --metatable for complex numbers
function new (r, i)
local cp = {}
cp = {r=r, i=i}
return setmetatable(cp,mt)
end
M.new = new -- add 'new' to the module
function M.op (...)
--Why does not it work?
local _ENV = complex
return ...
end
function M.add (c1, c2)
return new(c1.r + c2.r, c1.i + c2.i)
end
function M.tostring (c)
return string.format("(%g,%g)", c.r, c.i) --to avoid +-
end
mt.__tostring = M.tostring
mt.__add = M.add
complex.a = M.new(4,3)
complex.b = N.new(6,2)
--nil
M.op(a+b)
--It works
M,op(complex.a+complex.b)
The use of _ENV has no effect. However, if I use complex = _G, both lines work. How do set a local environment for M.op. I'm not asking for specific libraries, I just want to know why it does not work and how to fix it.
M.op(a+b)
This line doesn't do what you expect, because it uses values of a and b that are available when this method is called. It doesn't matter that you set _ENV value inside the method, as by the time the control gets there, the values referenced by a and b have already been retrieved and since both values are nil in your code, you probably get "attempt to perform arithmetic on global..." error.
how to fix it.
I'm not sure what exactly you want to fix, as you already reference the example that works. If you assign complex.a you can't assume that a will have the same value without mapping complex table to _ENV.
I have a file database. Inside that file I have something like:
DB_A = ...
DB_B = ...
.
.
.
DB_N = ...
I would like to parse the data and group them in lua code like this:
data={}
-- the result after parsing a file
data={
["DB_A"] = {...},
["DB_B"] = {...},
.
.
.
["DB_N"] = {...}
}
In other words, is it possible to create a table inside a table dynamically and assign the key to each table without previously knowing what will be the names of the key (that is something I can figure out after parsing the data from a database).
(Just as a note, I am using Lua 5.3.5; also, I apologize that my code resembles C more than Lua!)
Iterating through your input file line-by-line--which can be done with the Lua FILE*'s lines method--you can use string.match to grab the information you are looking for from each line.
#!/usr/bin/lua
local PATTERN = "(%S+)%s?=%s?(%S+)"
local function eprintf(fmt, ...)
io.stderr:write(string.format(fmt, ...))
return
end
local function printf(fmt, ...)
io.stdout:write(string.format(fmt, ...))
return
end
local function make_table_from_file(filename)
local input = assert(io.open(filename, "r"))
local data = {}
for line in input:lines() do
local key, value = string.match(line, PATTERN)
data[key] = value
end
return data
end
local function main(argc, argv)
if (argc < 1) then
eprintf("Filename expected from command line\n")
os.exit(1)
end
local data = make_table_from_file(argv[1])
for k, v in pairs(data) do
printf("data[%s] = %s\n", k, data[k])
end
return 0
end
main(#arg, arg)
The variable declared at the top of the file, PATTERN, is your capture pattern to be used by string.match. If you are unfamiliar with how Lua's pattern matching works, this pattern looks for a series of non-space characters with zero or one spaces to its right, an equal sign, another space, and then another series of non-space characters. The two series of non-space characters are the two matches--key and value--returned by string.match in the function make_table_from_file.
The functions eprintf and printf are my Lua versions of C-style formatted output functions. The former writes to standard error, io.stderr in Lua; and the latter writes to standard output, io.stdout in Lua.
In your question, you give a sample of what your expected output is. Within your table data, you want it to contain keys that correspond to tables as values. Based on the sample input text you provided, I assume the data contained within these tables are whatever comes to the right of the equal signs in the input file--which you represent with .... As I do not know what exactly those ...s represent, I cannot give you a solid example for how to separate that right-hand data into a table. Depending on what you are looking to do, you could take the second variable returned by string.match, which I called value, and further separate it using Lua's string pattern matching. It could look something like this:
...
local function make_table_from_value(val)
// Split `val` into distinct elements to form a table with `some_pattern`
return {string.match(val, some_pattern)}
end
local function make_table_from_file(filename)
local input = assert(io.open(filename, "r"))
local data = {}
for line in input:lines() do
local key, value = string.match(line, PATTERN)
data[key] = make_table_from_value(value)
end
return data
end
...
In make_table_from_value, string.match will return some number of elements, based on whatever string pattern you provide as its second argument, which you can then use to create a table by enclosing the function call in curly braces. It will be a table that uses numerical indices as keys--rather than strings or some other data type--starting from 1.
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 started to work with a C++/Lua codebase that is somewhat a mess, and when I dump the contents of _G in the middle of the application execution, there are hundreds of variables that I am sure were only initialized somewhere, but are not used anywhere else in the code anymore. To clean this up, I would like to setup a mechanism that will log whenever Lua accesses a global variable.
This was my idea of how to achieve this – I wanted to setup a proxy _G that would only pass all read and write accesses via __index and __newindex along to its own copy of the original _G. However this simple script doesn't work and only outputs:
C:\Programs\lua-5.1.5_Win32_bin\lua5.1: error in error handling
GProx =
{
vars = _G
}
setmetatable(GProx, {
__index = function (t, name)
print("Read> " .. name)
return t.vars[name]
end,
__newindex = function (t, name, val)
print("Write> " .. name .. ' = ' .. val)
t.vars[name] = val
end
})
setfenv(0, GProx)
a = 1 --> Expected to print 'Write> a'
print(a) --> Expected to print 'Read> print', 'Read> a', and '1'
Is this a good approach or is there a better way to do this?
If this is a valid line of thought, then what is the problem with my snippet?
Try this snippet instead, it will work with reads and writes:
do
-- Use local variables
local old_G, new_G = _G, {}
-- Copy values if you want to silence logging
-- about already set fields (eg. predeclared globals).
-- for k, v in pairs(old_G) do new_G[k] = v end
setmetatable(new_G, {
__index = function (t, key)
print("Read> " .. tostring(key))
return old_G[key]
end,
__newindex = function (t, key, val)
print("Write> " .. tostring(key) .. ' = ' .. tostring(val))
old_G[key] = val
end,
})
-- Set it at level 1 (top-level function)
setfenv(1, new_G)
end
Here's a rundown of the changes:
A block is used to have a local reference to the old _G. In your proposed implementation, if a global variable named vars is set, it will override GProx.vars and break the proxy.
key and val should go through tostring before printing, since most values (ie. tables) aren't implicitly converted to strings.
Setting the environment at level 1 is usually enough and will not mess with Lua's internal workings.
You can set a metatable directly on the _G table, as explained in PIL section 14.2, so you are really close. There are also a couple of existing Lua modules on the web that do this (perhaps penlight contains one).
I am creating functions (of x) from a string in Lua. The code I am using is
function fcreate(fs)
return assert(loadstring("return function (x) return " .. fs.." end"))()
end
This works for globals, e.g.
u=fcreate("math.sin(x)")
does the right thing.
However, it does not seem to like local variables. So
local c=1
u=fcreate("math.sin(x)+c")
will not work because c is local.
Is this fixable?
"loadstring does not compile with lexical scoping", so no, it can't see locals outside the loadstring call.
Is this fixable?
That depends. Why are you using loadstring in the first place? Lua supports closures as first class values, so I can't see from your example why you'd need loadstring.
Your example:
u = fcreate("math.sin(x)+c")
Can be rewritten without the need for loadstring or your fcreate function:
u = function(x) return math.sin(x)+c end
Which of course is the same as:
function u(x) return math.sin(x) + c end
I can see a case for loadstring if you have user-configurable expressions that you wanted to compile into some other function, but your case with the local c suggests that's not the case. Are you trying to make some kinda of home-rolled lamda syntax?
Can't be done in any reasonable way. For an example of why, look at this:
function makefunction(name)
local a = 1
local b = 2
local c = 3
-- ...
return assert(loadstring("return " .. name))
end
local a = 4
local func = makefunction("a")
print(func())
If this worked, what is printed? 1 or 4? Does it capture the variable from the place where the function was loaded, even though that function doesn't exist anymore? Or does it look it up from the place where it was called?
The first would mean that the function is lexically scoped wherever it's created. Being able to access the variable after the function has exited means that the variable would need to be promoted into an upvalue dynamically, which is not something that Lua can do at the moment. As it is now, Lua can see every access to a local variable during compilation, so it knows which variables to turn into upvalues (at a performance hit) and which to keep as locals.
The second would mean that variable accesses inside a loadstring'd function would work completely different than every other access in Lua: Lua uses lexical scoping, not dynamic scoping. It'd be a huge implementation change in Lua, and an extremely inconsistent one.
So, neither is supported. You can control the environment of a dynamically loaded function, using setfenv in Lua 5.1 or the env parameter of load(...) in Lua 5.2, but neither of those let you access local variables automatically.
Something you could do if you don't need to mutate the local variables is to pass those values as arguments to the generated function. You would still need to manually specify the variables to close over but its better then nothing.
For example, you can build up your closure to look like
return (function(a,b,c)
return function(x) return print(a, x) end
end)(...)
We might do that by changing your function to look like
function fcreate(variables, fs)
local varnames = {}
local varvalues = {}
local nvars = 0
for n,v in pairs(variables) do
nvars = nvars + 1
table.insert(varnames, n)
table.insert(varvalues, v)
end
local chunk_str = (
'return (function(' .. table.concat(varnames, ',') .. ') ' ..
'return function(x) return ' .. fs .. ' end ' ..
'end)(...)'
)
return assert( loadstring(chunk_str) )( unpack(varvalues, 1, nvars) )
end
local a = 1;
local f = fcreate({a=a}, 'x+a')
print(f(1), f(2))