Lua output for moonscript classes is MASSIVE - lua

I'd like to be able to make a program for ComputerCraft using MoonScript, but due to the way that CC is sandboxed to prevent security issues on Minecraft servers and such, I can't require moonscript directly and run moonscript code from there. I have to convert my moonscript code to lua.
This is problematic, however, due to the fact that the class implementation for moonscript is very big, and not very filesize-conservative. When I type "class Bacon", it outputs this for lua:
local Bacon
do
local _parent_0 = nil
local _base_0 = { }
_base_0.__index = _base_0
if _parent_0 then
setmetatable(_base_0, _parent_0.__base)
end
local _class_0 = setmetatable({
__init = function(self, ...)
if _parent_0 then
return _parent_0.__init(self, ...)
end
end,
__base = _base_0,
__name = "Bacon",
__parent = _parent_0
}, {
__index = function(cls, name)
local val = rawget(_base_0, name)
if val == nil and _parent_0 then
return _parent_0[name]
else
return val
end
end,
__call = function(cls, ...)
local _self_0 = setmetatable({}, _base_0)
cls.__init(_self_0, ...)
return _self_0
end
})
_base_0.__class = _class_0
if _parent_0 and _parent_0.__inherited then
_parent_0.__inherited(_parent_0, _class_0)
end
Bacon = _class_0
return _class_0
end
And this is for every class implementation, which is kind of ridiculous. Is there any way I can shorten this in my moonscript code?

The amount of generated code has been cleaned up quite a bit in the latest version, 0.2.4: http://leafo.net/posts/moonscript_v024.html#code_generation_changes
A class now minimally looks like this
local Hello
do
local _base_0 = { }
_base_0.__index = _base_0
local _class_0 = setmetatable({
__init = function() end,
__base = _base_0,
__name = "Hello"
}, {
__index = _base_0,
__call = function(cls, ...)
local _self_0 = setmetatable({}, _base_0)
cls.__init(_self_0, ...)
return _self_0
end
})
_base_0.__class = _class_0
Hello = _class_0
end

Just looking at the code I can remove some dead paths due to _parent_0 being nil...
local Bacon
do
local _base_0 = { }
_base_0.__index = _base_0
local _class_0 = setmetatable({
__init = function(self, ...)
end,
__base = _base_0,
__name = "Bacon",
}, {
__index = function(cls, name)
return rawget(_base_0, name)
end,
__call = function(cls, ...)
local _self_0 = setmetatable({}, _base_0)
cls.__init(_self_0, ...)
return _self_0
end
})
_base_0.__class = _class_0
Bacon = _class_0
return _class_0
end
You can find a static analyser to do this for you.
Otherwise if it's purely code size (in bytes) that concerns you, then use a compressor (e.g. Squish)

There is no way that you can shorten this in your moonscript code. But you might be able to post-process the output manually rather trivially to refactor common portions. Is it worth doing? Consider this:
If you want to use the notion of "class" as it is available in moonscript, then you have to code all those steps anyways (otherwise you get a "class" with different "class" behavior).
The difference is that in moonscript, N classes cause N copies of the code you posted, differing only by two lines each, whereas if you implemented moonscript's notion of class manually, you would probably use a function to define classes, as is done in some Lua OO libraries: Bacon = newClass("Bacon") would call the above code, with the "__name =" and "Bacon =" lines replaced appropriately.
So by copying moonscript code instead of code it manually, each class requires 20 lines of code (latest moonscript). But unless your classes are trivial, it is likely that they will contain a fair bit more code than 20 lines, probably 200.
So while it is true that you are duplicating 18 lines per class, this is likely less than 10% of the code you will have to write.
But that is an assumption. If the assumption is wrong, then the question is, why do you need classes in the first places? Just use basic Lua objects based on tables with ':' sugar.
If you really want use the moonscript output, I think your only option is to refactor it manually. The code you posted can be put in a function and only two lines need to be changed to parametrize for class name.
Note that there several advantages to leaving the Lua code duplication generated by moonscript in your Lua files, at least for oft-used operations (class definition is probably not one of them, but moonscript does way more than that):
it cuts back on function calls; this is likely to increase speed since no need to push variables onto a stack, call a function, put return values onto the stack, read stack, pop values off stack). Whether the speed increase is noticeable will depend a lot on how often the code is called.
it is more maintainable: if done right, you can likely update the code when moonscript gets updated more easily.

Related

Is there a way to duplicate a table in lua that is alterable without it affecting the original? [duplicate]

Recently I wrote a bit of Lua code something like:
local a = {}
for i = 1, n do
local copy = a
-- alter the values in the copy
end
Obviously, that wasn't what I wanted to do since variables hold references to an anonymous table not the values of the table themselves in Lua. This is clearly laid out in Programming in Lua, but I'd forgotten about it.
So the question is what should I write instead of copy = a to get a copy of the values in a?
Table copy has many potential definitions. It depends on whether you want simple or deep copy, whether you want to copy, share or ignore metatables, etc. There is no single implementation that could satisfy everybody.
One approach is to simply create a new table and duplicate all key/value pairs:
function table.shallow_copy(t)
local t2 = {}
for k,v in pairs(t) do
t2[k] = v
end
return t2
end
copy = table.shallow_copy(a)
Note that you should use pairs instead of ipairs, since ipairs only iterate over a subset of the table keys (ie. consecutive positive integer keys starting at one in increasing order).
Just to illustrate the point, my personal table.copy also pays attention to metatables:
function table.copy(t)
local u = { }
for k, v in pairs(t) do u[k] = v end
return setmetatable(u, getmetatable(t))
end
There is no copy function sufficiently widely agreed upon to be called "standard".
To play a little readable-code-golf, here's a short version that handles the standard tricky cases:
tables as keys,
preserving metatables, and
recursive tables.
We can do this in 7 lines:
function copy(obj, seen)
if type(obj) ~= 'table' then return obj end
if seen and seen[obj] then return seen[obj] end
local s = seen or {}
local res = setmetatable({}, getmetatable(obj))
s[obj] = res
for k, v in pairs(obj) do res[copy(k, s)] = copy(v, s) end
return res
end
There is a short write-up of Lua deep-copy operations in this gist.
Another useful reference is this Lua-users wiki page, which includes an example on how to avoid the __pairs metamethod.
The full version of deep copy, handling all the 3 situations:
Table circular reference
Keys which are also tables
Metatable
The general version:
local function deepcopy(o, seen)
seen = seen or {}
if o == nil then return nil end
if seen[o] then return seen[o] end
local no
if type(o) == 'table' then
no = {}
seen[o] = no
for k, v in next, o, nil do
no[deepcopy(k, seen)] = deepcopy(v, seen)
end
setmetatable(no, deepcopy(getmetatable(o), seen))
else -- number, string, boolean, etc
no = o
end
return no
end
Or the table version:
function table.deepcopy(o, seen)
seen = seen or {}
if o == nil then return nil end
if seen[o] then return seen[o] end
local no = {}
seen[o] = no
setmetatable(no, deepcopy(getmetatable(o), seen))
for k, v in next, o, nil do
k = (type(k) == 'table') and k:deepcopy(seen) or k
v = (type(v) == 'table') and v:deepcopy(seen) or v
no[k] = v
end
return no
end
Based on the lua-users.org/wiki/CopyTable's and Alan Yates' functions.
An optionally deep, graph-general, recursive version:
function table.copy(t, deep, seen)
seen = seen or {}
if t == nil then return nil end
if seen[t] then return seen[t] end
local nt = {}
for k, v in pairs(t) do
if deep and type(v) == 'table' then
nt[k] = table.copy(v, deep, seen)
else
nt[k] = v
end
end
setmetatable(nt, table.copy(getmetatable(t), deep, seen))
seen[t] = nt
return nt
end
Perhaps metatable copy should be optional also?
Here's what I actually did:
for j,x in ipairs(a) do copy[j] = x end
As Doub mentions, if your table keys are not strictly monotonically increasing, it should be pairs not ipairs.
I also found a deepcopy function that is more robust:
function deepcopy(orig)
local orig_type = type(orig)
local copy
if orig_type == 'table' then
copy = {}
for orig_key, orig_value in next, orig, nil do
copy[deepcopy(orig_key)] = deepcopy(orig_value)
end
setmetatable(copy, deepcopy(getmetatable(orig)))
else -- number, string, boolean, etc
copy = orig
end
return copy
end
It handles tables and metatables by calling itself recursively (which is its own reward). One of the clever bits is that you can pass it any value (whether a table or not) and it will be copied correctly. However, the cost is that it could potentially overflow the stack. So and even more robust (non-recursive) function might be needed.
But that's overkill for the very simple case of wanting to copy an array into another variable.
The (unfortunately lightly documented) stdlib project has a number of valuable extensions to several of the libraries shipped with the standard Lua distribution. Among them are several variations on the theme of table copying and merging.
This library is also included in the Lua for Windows distribution, and should probably be a part of any serious Lua user's toolbox.
One thing to make sure of when implementing things like this by hand is the proper handling of metatables. For simple table-as-structure applications you probably don't have any metatables, and a simple loop using pairs() is an acceptable answer. But if the table is used as a tree, or contains circular references, or has metatables, then things get more complex.
Don't forget that functions are also references, so if you wanted to completely 'copy' all of the values you'd need to get separate functions, too; however, the only way I know to copy a function is to use loadstring(string.dump(func)), which according to the Lua reference manual, doesn't work for functions with upvalues.
do
local function table_copy (tbl)
local new_tbl = {}
for key,value in pairs(tbl) do
local value_type = type(value)
local new_value
if value_type == "function" then
new_value = loadstring(string.dump(value))
-- Problems may occur if the function has upvalues.
elseif value_type == "table" then
new_value = table_copy(value)
else
new_value = value
end
new_tbl[key] = new_value
end
return new_tbl
end
table.copy = table_copy
end
I think the reason why Lua doesn't have 'table.copy()' in its standard libraries is because the task is not precise to define. As shown already here, one can either make a copy "one level deep" (which you did), a deepcopy with or without caring of possible duplicate references. And then there's metatables.
Personally, I would still like them to offer a built-in function. Only if people wouldn't be pleased with its semantics, they would need to go do it themselves. Not very often, though, one actually has the copy-by-value need.
Warning: the marked solution is INCORRECT!
When the table contains tables, references to those tables will still be used instead. I have been searching two hours for a mistake that I was making, while it was because of using the above code.
So you need to check if the value is a table or not. If it is, you should call table.copy recursively!
This is the correct table.copy function:
function table.copy(t)
local t2 = {};
for k,v in pairs(t) do
if type(v) == "table" then
t2[k] = table.copy(v);
else
t2[k] = v;
end
end
return t2;
end
Note: This might also be incomplete when the table contains functions or other special types, but that is possible something most of us don't need. The above code is easily adaptable for those who need it.
That's as good as you'll get for basic tables. Use something like deepcopy if you need to copy tables with metatables.
In most of the cases when I needed to copy a table, I wanted to have a copy that doesn't share anything with the original, such that any modification of the original table has no impact on the copy (and vice versa).
All the snippets that have been shown so far fail at creating a copy for a table that may have shared keys or keys with tables as those are going to be left pointing to the original table. It's easy to see if you try to copy a table created as: a = {}; a[a] = a. deepcopy function referenced by Jon takes care of that, so if you need to create a real/full copy, deepcopy should be used.
Use penlight library here:
https://stevedonovan.github.io/Penlight/api/libraries/pl.tablex.html#deepcopy
local pl = require 'pl.import_into'()
local newTable = pl.tablex.deepcopy(oldTable)
Just use the
local unpack = unpack or table.unpack
list2 = {unpack (list)}
This might be the simplest method:
local data = {DIN1 = "Input(z)", DIN2 = "Input(y)", AINA1 = "Input(x)"}
function table.copy(mytable) --mytable = the table you need to copy
newtable = {}
for k,v in pairs(mytable) do
newtable[k] = v
end
return newtable
end
new_table = table.copy(data) --copys the table "data"
In my situation, when the information in the table is only data and other tables (excluding functions, ...), is the following line of code the winning solution:
local copyOfTable = json.decode( json.encode( sourceTable ) )
I'm writing Lua code for some home automation on a Fibaro Home Center 2. The implementation of Lua is very limited with no central library of functions you can refer to. Every function needs to be declared in the code so to keep the code serviceable, so one line solutions like this are favorable.

Use of _ENV in Lua function does not have effect

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.

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 equals function and tables [duplicate]

Recently I wrote a bit of Lua code something like:
local a = {}
for i = 1, n do
local copy = a
-- alter the values in the copy
end
Obviously, that wasn't what I wanted to do since variables hold references to an anonymous table not the values of the table themselves in Lua. This is clearly laid out in Programming in Lua, but I'd forgotten about it.
So the question is what should I write instead of copy = a to get a copy of the values in a?
Table copy has many potential definitions. It depends on whether you want simple or deep copy, whether you want to copy, share or ignore metatables, etc. There is no single implementation that could satisfy everybody.
One approach is to simply create a new table and duplicate all key/value pairs:
function table.shallow_copy(t)
local t2 = {}
for k,v in pairs(t) do
t2[k] = v
end
return t2
end
copy = table.shallow_copy(a)
Note that you should use pairs instead of ipairs, since ipairs only iterate over a subset of the table keys (ie. consecutive positive integer keys starting at one in increasing order).
Just to illustrate the point, my personal table.copy also pays attention to metatables:
function table.copy(t)
local u = { }
for k, v in pairs(t) do u[k] = v end
return setmetatable(u, getmetatable(t))
end
There is no copy function sufficiently widely agreed upon to be called "standard".
To play a little readable-code-golf, here's a short version that handles the standard tricky cases:
tables as keys,
preserving metatables, and
recursive tables.
We can do this in 7 lines:
function copy(obj, seen)
if type(obj) ~= 'table' then return obj end
if seen and seen[obj] then return seen[obj] end
local s = seen or {}
local res = setmetatable({}, getmetatable(obj))
s[obj] = res
for k, v in pairs(obj) do res[copy(k, s)] = copy(v, s) end
return res
end
There is a short write-up of Lua deep-copy operations in this gist.
Another useful reference is this Lua-users wiki page, which includes an example on how to avoid the __pairs metamethod.
The full version of deep copy, handling all the 3 situations:
Table circular reference
Keys which are also tables
Metatable
The general version:
local function deepcopy(o, seen)
seen = seen or {}
if o == nil then return nil end
if seen[o] then return seen[o] end
local no
if type(o) == 'table' then
no = {}
seen[o] = no
for k, v in next, o, nil do
no[deepcopy(k, seen)] = deepcopy(v, seen)
end
setmetatable(no, deepcopy(getmetatable(o), seen))
else -- number, string, boolean, etc
no = o
end
return no
end
Or the table version:
function table.deepcopy(o, seen)
seen = seen or {}
if o == nil then return nil end
if seen[o] then return seen[o] end
local no = {}
seen[o] = no
setmetatable(no, deepcopy(getmetatable(o), seen))
for k, v in next, o, nil do
k = (type(k) == 'table') and k:deepcopy(seen) or k
v = (type(v) == 'table') and v:deepcopy(seen) or v
no[k] = v
end
return no
end
Based on the lua-users.org/wiki/CopyTable's and Alan Yates' functions.
An optionally deep, graph-general, recursive version:
function table.copy(t, deep, seen)
seen = seen or {}
if t == nil then return nil end
if seen[t] then return seen[t] end
local nt = {}
for k, v in pairs(t) do
if deep and type(v) == 'table' then
nt[k] = table.copy(v, deep, seen)
else
nt[k] = v
end
end
setmetatable(nt, table.copy(getmetatable(t), deep, seen))
seen[t] = nt
return nt
end
Perhaps metatable copy should be optional also?
Here's what I actually did:
for j,x in ipairs(a) do copy[j] = x end
As Doub mentions, if your table keys are not strictly monotonically increasing, it should be pairs not ipairs.
I also found a deepcopy function that is more robust:
function deepcopy(orig)
local orig_type = type(orig)
local copy
if orig_type == 'table' then
copy = {}
for orig_key, orig_value in next, orig, nil do
copy[deepcopy(orig_key)] = deepcopy(orig_value)
end
setmetatable(copy, deepcopy(getmetatable(orig)))
else -- number, string, boolean, etc
copy = orig
end
return copy
end
It handles tables and metatables by calling itself recursively (which is its own reward). One of the clever bits is that you can pass it any value (whether a table or not) and it will be copied correctly. However, the cost is that it could potentially overflow the stack. So and even more robust (non-recursive) function might be needed.
But that's overkill for the very simple case of wanting to copy an array into another variable.
The (unfortunately lightly documented) stdlib project has a number of valuable extensions to several of the libraries shipped with the standard Lua distribution. Among them are several variations on the theme of table copying and merging.
This library is also included in the Lua for Windows distribution, and should probably be a part of any serious Lua user's toolbox.
One thing to make sure of when implementing things like this by hand is the proper handling of metatables. For simple table-as-structure applications you probably don't have any metatables, and a simple loop using pairs() is an acceptable answer. But if the table is used as a tree, or contains circular references, or has metatables, then things get more complex.
Don't forget that functions are also references, so if you wanted to completely 'copy' all of the values you'd need to get separate functions, too; however, the only way I know to copy a function is to use loadstring(string.dump(func)), which according to the Lua reference manual, doesn't work for functions with upvalues.
do
local function table_copy (tbl)
local new_tbl = {}
for key,value in pairs(tbl) do
local value_type = type(value)
local new_value
if value_type == "function" then
new_value = loadstring(string.dump(value))
-- Problems may occur if the function has upvalues.
elseif value_type == "table" then
new_value = table_copy(value)
else
new_value = value
end
new_tbl[key] = new_value
end
return new_tbl
end
table.copy = table_copy
end
I think the reason why Lua doesn't have 'table.copy()' in its standard libraries is because the task is not precise to define. As shown already here, one can either make a copy "one level deep" (which you did), a deepcopy with or without caring of possible duplicate references. And then there's metatables.
Personally, I would still like them to offer a built-in function. Only if people wouldn't be pleased with its semantics, they would need to go do it themselves. Not very often, though, one actually has the copy-by-value need.
Warning: the marked solution is INCORRECT!
When the table contains tables, references to those tables will still be used instead. I have been searching two hours for a mistake that I was making, while it was because of using the above code.
So you need to check if the value is a table or not. If it is, you should call table.copy recursively!
This is the correct table.copy function:
function table.copy(t)
local t2 = {};
for k,v in pairs(t) do
if type(v) == "table" then
t2[k] = table.copy(v);
else
t2[k] = v;
end
end
return t2;
end
Note: This might also be incomplete when the table contains functions or other special types, but that is possible something most of us don't need. The above code is easily adaptable for those who need it.
That's as good as you'll get for basic tables. Use something like deepcopy if you need to copy tables with metatables.
In most of the cases when I needed to copy a table, I wanted to have a copy that doesn't share anything with the original, such that any modification of the original table has no impact on the copy (and vice versa).
All the snippets that have been shown so far fail at creating a copy for a table that may have shared keys or keys with tables as those are going to be left pointing to the original table. It's easy to see if you try to copy a table created as: a = {}; a[a] = a. deepcopy function referenced by Jon takes care of that, so if you need to create a real/full copy, deepcopy should be used.
Use penlight library here:
https://stevedonovan.github.io/Penlight/api/libraries/pl.tablex.html#deepcopy
local pl = require 'pl.import_into'()
local newTable = pl.tablex.deepcopy(oldTable)
Just use the
local unpack = unpack or table.unpack
list2 = {unpack (list)}
This might be the simplest method:
local data = {DIN1 = "Input(z)", DIN2 = "Input(y)", AINA1 = "Input(x)"}
function table.copy(mytable) --mytable = the table you need to copy
newtable = {}
for k,v in pairs(mytable) do
newtable[k] = v
end
return newtable
end
new_table = table.copy(data) --copys the table "data"
In my situation, when the information in the table is only data and other tables (excluding functions, ...), is the following line of code the winning solution:
local copyOfTable = json.decode( json.encode( sourceTable ) )
I'm writing Lua code for some home automation on a Fibaro Home Center 2. The implementation of Lua is very limited with no central library of functions you can refer to. Every function needs to be declared in the code so to keep the code serviceable, so one line solutions like this are favorable.

What's the difference between these two Lua examples? Is one better?

I'm just getting started with Lua. In the example I'm learning from (the Ghosts & Monsters Corona open source), I see this pattern repeatedly.
local director = require("director")
local mainGroup = display.newGroup()
local function main()
mainGroup:insert(director.directorView)
openfeint = require ("openfeint")
openfeint.init( "App Key Here", "App Secret Here", "Ghosts vs. Monsters", "App ID Here" )
director:changeScene( "loadmainmenu" )
return true
end
main()
Is this some sort of convention experienced Lua programmers recommend or are there genuine advantages to doing it this way? Why wouldn't you just skip the function all together and do this:
local director = require("director")
local mainGroup = display.newGroup()
mainGroup:insert(director.directorView)
local openfeint = require ("openfeint")
openfeint.init( "App Key Here", "App Secret Here", "Ghosts vs. Monsters", "App ID Here" )
director:changeScene( "loadmainmenu" )
Is there some implicit benefit to the first style over the second? Thanks!
Is this some sort of convention experienced Lua programmers recommend or are there genuine advantages to doing it this way?
It's not typical. The advantage is that object state is private, but that's not enough of an advantage to recommend it.
I see this pattern repeatedly.
I've never seen it before, and it happens only once in the source you posted.
EDIT: Adding a response to a question asked in the comments below this post.
A function which accesses external local variables binds to those variables and is called a 'closure'. Lua (for historical reasons) refers to those bound variables as 'upvalues'. For example:
local function counter()
local i = 1
return function()
print(i)
i = i + 1
end
end
local a, b = counter(), counter()
a() a() a() b() --> 1 2 3 1
a and b are closures bound to different copies of i, as you can see from the output. In other words, you can think of a closure as function with it's own private state. You can use this to simulate objects:
function Point(x,y)
local p = {}
function p.getX() -- syntax sugar for p.getX = function()
return x
end
function p.setX(x_)
x = x_
end
-- for brevity, not implementing a setter/getter for y
return p
end
p1 = Point(10,20)
p1.setX(50)
print(p1.getX())
Point returns a table of closures, each bound to the locals x and y. The table doesn't contain the point's state, the closures themselves do, via their upvalues. An important point is that each time Point is called it creates new closures, which is not very efficient if you have large quantities of objects.
Another way of creating classes in Lua is to create functions that take a table as the first argument, with state being stored in the table:
function Point(x,y)
local p = {x=x,y=y}
function p:getX() -- syntax sugar for p.getX = function(self)
return self.x
end
function p:setX(x)
self.x = x
end
return p
end
p1 = Point(10,20)
p1:setX(50) -- syntax sugar for p1.setX(p1, 50)
print(p1:getX()) -- syntax sugar for p1.getX(p1)
So far, we're still creating new copies of each method, but now that we're not relying on upvalues for state, we can fix that:
PointClass = {}
function PointClass:getX() return self.x end
function PointClass:setX(x) self.x = x end
function Point(x,y)
return {
x = x,
y = y,
getX = PointClass.getX,
setX = PointClass.getY,
}
end
Now the methods are created once, and all Point instances share the same closures. An even better way of doing this is to use Lua's metaprogramming facility to make new Point instances automatically look in PointClass for methods not found in the instance itself:
PointClass = {}
PointClass.__index = PointClass -- metamethod
function PointClass:getX() return self.x end
function PointClass:setX(x) self.x = x end
function Point(x,y)
return setmetatable({x=x,y=y}, PointClass)
end
p1 = Point(10,20)
-- the p1 table does not itself contain a setX member, but p1 has a metatable, so
-- when an indexing operation fails, Lua will look in the metatable for an __index
-- metamethod. If that metamethod is a table, Lua will look for getX in that table,
-- resolving p1.setX to PointClass.setX.
p1:setX(50)
This is a more idiomatic way of creating classes in Lua. It's more memory efficient and more flexible (in particular, it makes it easy to implement inheritance).
I frequently write my own Lua scripts this way because it improves readability in this case:
function main()
helper1( helper2( arg[1] ) )
helper3()
end
function helper1( foo )
print( foo )
end
function helper2( bar )
return bar*bar
end
function helper3()
print( 'hello world!' )
end
main()
This way the "main" code is at the top, but I can still define the necessary global functions before it executes.
A simple trick, really. I can't think of any reason to do this besides readability.
The first style could be used too improove readability, but I would rather give the function some meaningful name instead of main or just go without the function.
By the way, I think it's always a good practice to name blocks of code, i.e. put them into functions or methods. It helps explain your intend with that piece of code, and encourages reuse.
I don't see much point to the first style as you've shown it. But if it said something like if arg then main() end at the bottom, the script might (just might) be useful as a loadable "library" in addition to being a standalone script. That said, having a main() like that smacks of C, not Lua; I think you're right to question it.

Resources