Fast implementation of queues in Lua? - lua

I am making a game using Lua and I need to use Breadth-first search to implement a fast path-finding algorithm which finds the shortest path between the enemy AI and the player.
I will have up to 3 enemies using this algorithm at once and map is a 2-dimensional tile-based maze. I have already implemented collision detection so now all that is left to do is get a way for the enemies to find the shortest path to the player in a way that can be done quickly and and preferably about 80-90 times per second per enemy.
When I previously implemented breadth-first search, I used a queue in C++. From what I have read about Lua, stack implementations using tables are very efficient since the elements don't need to be shifted after push() (AKA table.insert) and pop() (table.remove) operations. However, I have theorized that queues with large sizes can be very inefficient in Lua, because if you want to insert/remove something from index 1 of a table, all other elements in the table must be shifted either upward or downward in the table.
Thus, I would like to ask some simple questions for those experienced in Lua. What is the simplest and/or fastest implementation of a queue in this language? Is it even possible to have a fast queue in Lua or is it just generally accepted that Lua will always be forced to "shift" all elements for a queue operation such as pop() or append()?
EDIT: I understand that the underlying implementation of "shifting elements" in Lua tables is written in C and is therefore quite optimized. I just would like to know if I have any better options for queues before I begin to write a simple table implementation.

A fast implementation of queue(actually double queue) in Lua is done by the book Programming in Lua:
List = {}
function List.new ()
return {first = 0, last = -1}
end
It can insert or remove an element at both ends in constant time, the key is to store both first and last.
function List.pushleft (list, value)
local first = list.first - 1
list.first = first
list[first] = value
end
function List.pushright (list, value)
local last = list.last + 1
list.last = last
list[last] = value
end
function List.popleft (list)
local first = list.first
if first > list.last then error("list is empty") end
local value = list[first]
list[first] = nil -- to allow garbage collection
list.first = first + 1
return value
end
function List.popright (list)
local last = list.last
if list.first > last then error("list is empty") end
local value = list[last]
list[last] = nil -- to allow garbage collection
list.last = last - 1
return value
end

Related

F# seq behavior

I'm a little baffled about the inner work of the sequence expression in F#.
Normally if we make a sequential file reader with seq with no intentional caching of data
seq {
let mutable current = file.Read()
while current <> -1 do
yield current
}
We will end up with some weird behavior if we try to do some re-iterate or backtracking, My Idea of this was, since Read() is a function calling some mutable value we can't expect the output to be correct if we re-iterate. But then this behaves nicely even on boundary reading?
let Read path =
seq {
use fp = System.IO.File.OpenRead path
let buf = [| for _ in 0 .. 1024 -> 0uy |]
let mutable pos = 1
let mutable current = 0
while pos <> 0 do
if current = 0 then
pos <- fp.Read(buf, 0, 1024)
if pos > 0 && current < pos then
yield buf.[current]
current <- (current + 1) % 1024
}
let content = Read "some path"
We clearly use the same buffer to enhance performance, but assuming that we read the 1025 byte, it will trigger an update to the buffer, if we then try to read any byte with position < 1025 after we still get the correct output. How can that be and what are the difference?
Your question is a bit unclear, so I'll try to guess.
When you create a seq { }, you're essentially creating a state machine which will run only as far as it needs to. When you request the very first element from it, it'll start at the top and run until your first yield instruction. Then, when you request another value, it'll run from that point until the next yield, and so on.
Keep in mind that a seq { } produces an IEnumerable<'T>, which is like a "plan of execution". Each time you start to iterate the sequence (for example by calling Seq.head), a call to GetEnumerator is made behind the scenes, which causes a new IEnumerator<'T> to be created. It is the IEnumerator which does the actual providing of values. You can think of it in more classical terms as having an array over which you can iterate (an iterable or enumerable) and many pointers over that array, each of which are at different points in the array (many iterators or enumerators).
In your first code, file is most likely external to the seq block. This means that the file you are reading from is baked into the plan of execution; no matter how many times you start to iterate the sequence, you'll always be reading from the same file. This is obviously going to cause unpredictable behaviour.
However, in your second code, the file is opened as part of the seq block's definition. This means that you'll get a new file handle each time you iterate the sequence or, essentially, a new file handle per enumerator. The reason this code works is that you can't reverse an enumerator or iterate over it multiple times, not with a single thread at least.
(Now, if you were to manually get an enumerator and advance it over multiple threads, you'd probably run into problems very quickly. But that is a different topic.)

Setting a meta table: Advantage of reference vs inline?

I was wondering if it would make sense to pass a meta table by reference vs declaring it in-line in setmetatable() when you want to use the same meta table for multiple tables.
My goal is to save memory, but only if it really makes a significant difference.
What I'm talking about is this:
-- Passing the meta table by reference:
JSON1 = {
metaTable = {
__index = function (t, k)
-- ...
end;
__call = function()
-- ...
end
};
parse = function(filePath)
local fakeParsedJson = {}
setmetatable(fakeParsedJson, JSON1.metaTable) -- Right here
return fakeParsedJson(filePath)
end;
}
VS
-- Passing the table in-line:
JSON2 = {
parse = function(filePath)
local fakeParsedJson = {}
setmetatable(fakeParsedJson, { -- Right here:
__index = function (t, k)
-- ...
end;
__call = function()
-- ...
end
})
return fakeParsedJson(filePath)
end;
}
I tried to find out if there is a significant difference in memory usage, but the only way I could find was to compare the gcinfo:
local start1 = gcinfo()
local example2_1 = JSON2.parse('example2_1.json')
local example2_2 = JSON2.parse('example2_2.json')
local example2_3 = JSON2.parse('example2_3.json')
local example2_4 = JSON2.parse('example2_4.json')
local example2_5 = JSON2.parse('example2_5.json')
print(gcinfo()-start1) -- Prints 1
local start2 = gcinfo()
local example1_1 = JSON1.parse('example1_1.json')
local example1_2 = JSON1.parse('example1_2.json')
local example1_3 = JSON1.parse('example1_3.json')
local example1_4 = JSON1.parse('example1_4.json')
local example1_5 = JSON1.parse('example1_5.json')
print(gcinfo()-start2) -- Prints 1
Here's my fiddle: https://repl.it/HfwS/34
It doesn't really look like there is a difference. But I just don't know what is actually happening under the hood.
When you call setmetatable(myTable,myMetaTable), will that write a complete copy of myMetaTable somewhere into myTable or will it just store a simple reference? Because if it would just store a reference, then it would make a lot of sense to have all my tables pointing to the same meta table.
(On x86_64, in Lua 5.3) every (empty) table costs 56 bytes. Every key/value entry in the table costs 32 bytes (but the number of entries is rounded up to the next power of two). (Byte counts may differ for different versions/platforms, but will be roughly the same +/- a power of two or so.)
If you have two entries in the metatable, that's 120 bytes per metatable. (You're also creating closures (function() … end), so it may actually be even more.)
Having the table constructor in argument position for the call to setmetatable means that every time that call is executed, a new independent table is created (+ new closures for the functions, …). (Also read the section on table constructors in the reference manual.) There is no smart compiler / no de-duplication / … In fact, there can't be, because other code could (potentially) modify a metatable, and then there's a clear semantic / observable difference between a single shared metatable and one metatable per thing. If that's not obvious, compare
Foo = { __name = "Foo", dump = print } ; Foo.__index = Foo
function newFoo( ) return setmetatable( { }, Foo ) end
and
function newFoo( )
local mt = { __name = "Foo", dump = print }
mt.__index = mt
return setmetatable( { }, mt )
end
If you say
t = { newFoo( ), newFoo( ), newFoo( ) }
getmetatable( t[1] ).dump = function( self ) print "<Foo>" end
for _, v in ipairs( t ) do v:dump( ) end
the first version will print
<Foo>
<Foo>
<Foo>
while the second one will print (e.g.)
<Foo>
Foo: 0x1267010
Foo: 0x1267120
which is clearly different behavior. So the compiler/… can not de-duplicate identical metatables, because other code (that was not yet seen) might modify one of the metatables, and then the observed behavior would be different.
▶ This means that if you create multiple (meta)tables, they must be kept somewhere. Storing several tables necessarily uses more memory than storing a single one, so having a table constructor in argument position for the call to setmetatable will use more memory than creating a table first and then passing a reference to it in the call.
That said, worrying about memory use should not be your primary concern. The semantics / "meaning" / observable behavior of your code are more important.
If you modify the metatable, should the behavior of all "objects" / values change? Or do you want to determine object types by metatable identity (getmetatable( x ) == Foo)? Then you must use a shared metatable (or an equivalent construction).
If you modify the metatable, should the behavior of only a single "object" change? Then you must construct & use separate metatables per "object" / value.
Only if you know that you will never modify the metatable, will not compare metatable references to determine object types, will not …, then these different approaches will show the same externally visible behavior, and only then you are free to choose based on secondary concerns (like memory usage, convenience / code brevity, …).
(In general, needing separately modifiable metatables is very rare, so using shared metatables (create first and pass the reference to setmetatable) is the usual approach – it saves memory and is nicer for debugging.)
Aside: gcinfo is very old and only returns integer approximations to the amount of memory used. Use collectgarbage "count" instead, and then you'll see a difference. (It returns kilobytes used, so multiply by 1024 to get bytes.)

Lua : copying a table efficiently (deep copy)

I try to make efficiently a copy of a lua table. I have written the following function copyTable() that works well (see below). But I imagined I could have something more efficient using the "passing by value" mechanism of the functions. I made a few tests to explore this mechanism :
function nop(x)
return x
end
function noop(x)
x={}
return x
end
function nooop(x)
x[#x+1]=4
return x
end
function copyTable(datatable)
local tblRes={}
if type(datatable)=="table" then
for k,v in pairs(datatable) do tblRes[k]=copyTable(v) end
else
tblRes=datatable
end
return tblRes
end
tab={1,2,3}
print(tab) -->table: 0x1d387e0 tab={1,2,3}
print(nop(tab)) -->table: 0x1d387e0 tab={1,2,3}
print(noop(tab)) -->table: 0x1e76f90 tab={1,2,3}
print(nooop(tab)) -->table: 0x1d387e0 tab={1,2,3,4}
print(tab) -->table: 0x1d387e0 tab={1,2,3,4}
print(copyTable(tab)) -->table: 0x1d388d0
We can see that the reference to the table is transferred unchanged through the functions (when I just read it or add things) except within noop() where I try a radical modification of the existing.
I read Bas Bossink and the answer made by Michael Anderson in this Q/A. Regarding the passing or tables as arguments, they emphasized the difference between "arguments passed by ref" and "arguments passed by values and tables are references" with examples where this difference appears.
But what does that mean precisely ? Do we have a copy of the reference, but what difference does that make with a passing through ref since the data pointed and therefore manipulated is still the same, not copied ? Is the mechanism in noop() specific when we try to affect nil to the table, specific to avoid the deletion of the table or in which cases does it trigger (we can see with nooop() that it is not always the case when the table is modified) ?
My question : how the mechanism of passing tables really works ? Is there a way to make a more efficient way to copy the data of a table without the burden of my copyTable ?
The rules of argument passing in Lua is similarly to C: everything is pass by value, but tables and userdata are passed around as pointers. Passing a copy of a reference does not appear so different in usage, but it is completely different than passing by reference.
For example, you brought this part up specifically.
function noop(x)
x={}
return x
end
print(noop(tab)) -->table: 0x1e76f90 tab={1, 2, 3}
You are assigning the value for the new table[1] into variable x (x now holds a new pointer value). You didn't mutate the original table, the tab variable still holds the pointer value to the original table. When you return from noop you are passing back the value of the new table, which is empty. Variables hold values, and a pointer is a value, not a reference.
Edit:
Missed your other question. No, if you want to deep-copy a table, a function similar to what you wrote is the only way. Deep copies are very slow when tables get large. To avoid performance issues, you might use a mechanism like "rewind tables", which keep track of changes made to them so they can be undone at later points in time (very useful in recursive with backtrack contexts). Or if you just need to keep users from screwing with table internals, write a "freezable" trait.
[1] Imagine the {} syntax is a function that constructs a new table and returns a pointer to the new table.
If you are sure that those 3 assumptions (A) are valid for "tab" (the table being copied):
There are no table keys
t1 = {}
tab = {}
tab[t1] = value
There are no repeated table values
t1 = {}
tab = {}
tab.a = t1
tab.b = t1
-- or
-- tab.a.b...x = t1
There are no recursive tables:
tab = {}
tab.a = tab
-- or
-- tab.a.b...x = tab
Then the code you provided is the smallest and almost as efficient as possible.
If A1 doesn't hold (i.e. you have table keys), then you must change your code to:
function copyTable(datatable)
local tblRes={}
if type(datatable)=="table" then
for k,v in pairs(datatable) do
tblRes[copyTable(k)] = copyTable(v)
end
else
tblRes=datatable
end
return tblRes
end
If A2 doesn't hold (i.e. you have repeated table values), then you could change your code to:
function copyTable(datatable, cache)
cache = cache or {}
local tblRes={}
if type(datatable)=="table" then
if cache[datatable] then return cache[datatable]
for k,v in pairs(datatable) do
tblRes[copyTable(k, cache)] = copyTable(v, cache)
end
cache[datatable] = tblRes
else
tblRes=datatable
end
return tblRes
end
This approach only pays off, though, if you have lots of repeated large tables. So, it is a matter of evaluating which version is faster for your actual production scenario.
If A3 doesn't hold (i.e. you have recursive tables), then your code (and both adjustments above) will enter an infinite recursive loop and eventually throw a stack overflow.
The simplest way to handle that is keeping a backtrack and throwing an error if table recursion happens:
function copyTable(datatable, cache, parents)
cache = cache or {}
parents = parents or {}
local tblRes={}
if type(datatable)=="table" then
if cache[datatable] then return cache[datatable]
assert(not parents[datatable])
parents[datatable] = true
for k,v in pairs(datatable) do
tblRes[copyTable(k, cache, parents)]
= copyTable(v, cache, parents)
end
parents[datatable] = false
cache[datatable] = tblRes
else
tblRes=datatable
end
return tblRes
end
My solution for a deepcopy function which handles recursive tables, preserving the original structure may be found here: https://gist.github.com/cpeosphoros/0aa286c6b39c1e452d9aa15d7537ac95

How can I get values from multiple instances of a class?

I am making a roguelike in Love2D as a hobby project. My approach is to try and use as much of the native capabilities of Lua and the Love2D (0.10.1) API as possible, without relying on fancy libraries like middleclass or HUMP, so as to learn more about the language.
After reading PiL's chapters on OOP and seeing the power there, I decided to set up a Mob class (using metamethods to emulate class functionality) that encompasses the players, monsters, and other NPCs (anything that can move). So, far, it's working beautifully, I can create all kinds of instances easily that share methods and all that stuff. But there's a lot of things I don't know how to do, yet, and one of them is holding my prototype up from further progress.
Setting up collision with the map itself wasn't too bad. My maps are tables full of tables full of integers, with 0 being the floor. The game draws "." and "#" and "+" and such to denote various inanimate objects, from each table. Player 1 moves using the numpad, and their position is tracked by dividing their raw pixel position by 32 to create a grid of 32x32 "tiles". Then, inside love.keypressed(key), I have lines like:
if key == "kp8" and currentmap[player1.grid_y - 1][player1.grid_x] == 0 then
player1.grid_y = player1.grid_y - 1
and so on, with elseifs for each key the player can press. This prevents them from walking through anything that isn't an open floor tile in the map itself.
But, I'm trying to implement some kind of "collision detection" to prevent MOBs from walking through each other and to use in writing the rules for combat, and this is trickier. I had a method in place to calculate the distance between mobs, but I'm told this might eventually cause rounding errors, plus it had to be written for each combination of mobs I want to test, individually.
What I'd like to know is: Is there a known (preferably elegant) way to get all instances of a particular class to pass some number of values to a table?
What I'd like to do is "ask" every Mob on a given map where they are, and have them "report" self.grid_x and self.grid_y to another layer of map that's just for tracking mobs (1 if self.is_here is true, 0 if not, or similar), that gets updated every turn. Then, I could implement collision rules based on coordinates being equal, or maybe a foo.is_here flag or something.
I have only vague ideas about how to proceed, however. Any help would be appreciated, including (and maybe especially) feedback as to a better way to do what I'm trying to do. Thanks!
A simple idea is to store "who is here" information for every cell of the field and update this information on every move of every object.
function create_game_field()
-- initialize a table for storing "who is here" information
who_is_here = {}
for y = 1,24 do
who_is_here[y] = {}
for x = 1,38 do
who_is_here[y][x] = 0
end
end
end
function Mob:can_move(dx, dy)
local u = currentmap[self.y + dy][self.x + dx]
local v = who_is_here[self.y + dy][self.x + dx]
if u == 0 and v == 0 then
return true
else
end
end
function Mob:move(dx, dy)
-- update "who is here"
who_is_here[self.y][self.x] = 0
self.x, self.y = self.x + dx, self.y + dy
who_is_here[self.y][self.x] = 1
end
function Mob:who_is_there(dx, dy) -- look who is standing on adjacent cell
return who_is_here[self.y + dy][self.x + dx] -- return mob or nil
end
function Mob:roll_call()
who_is_here[self.y][self.x] = 1
end
Usage example:
-- player1 spawns in at (6,9) on the grid coords
player1 = Mob:spawn(6,9)
-- player1 added to who_is_here
player1:roll_call()
Then, in love.keypressed(key):
if key == "kp8" and player1:can_move(0, -1) then
player1:move(0, -1)
end
There are a few ways you could get all your instances data but one of the simpler ones is probably to have them all be added to a table when they are created. Providing you add the entire table for that instance, all the values will update in the main table because it acts like a collection of pointers.
function mob:new( x, y, type )
self.x = 100
self.y = 200
self.type = type
-- any other declarations you need
table.insert(allMobs, self)
return self
end
Here we insert all the mobs into the table 'allMobs'. Once we have that we can simply iterate through and get all our coordinates.
for i, v in ipairs(allMobs) do
local x, y = v.x, v.y
-- Do whatever you need with the coordinates. Add them to another table, compare
-- them to others, etc.
end
Now we have a table with all our mobs in it and a way to access each of their positions. If you have any further inquiries then let me know.

What's the difference between table.insert(t, i) and t[#t+1] = i?

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 '#'

Resources