We (two people) are doing a project using Lua as an embedded language.
My teammate uses argument type checks almost everywhere:
function someFunction( a, b,c )
if a == nil then return end
--Some stuff here
if type( b ) ~= "function" then
Error( "blah" )
end
--More here
if someTable[ c ] == nil then someTable[ c ] = {}
end
I don't really like that as I think that most of those checks are unneccessary.. it kind of takes the "spirit" of using Lua. It also makes the code longer, slower and less readable in my opinion.
In general I would do it this way:
function someFunction( a, b,c )
--More here
if someTable[ c ] == nil then someTable[ c ] = {}
end
I leave out almost all type/argument checks and only do those who have a high chance of actually happening.
Now we are unsure of what solution is better and decided to ask you: Security checks in Lua - yes or no?
I'm not familiar with Lua, but Wikipedia seems to think it is duck-typed. I'm going to draw an analogy with Python, so forgive me if it's not appropriate.
In Python, functions are designed with the principle that they need an object that meets certain criteria. If you pass in a different object than what the original author intended, as long as it meets the criteria of the function, it should work. The idea being, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck." (Hence the name.) That said, there are a few rare instances where you need an object of a specific type, but this is not the general case.
At any rate, you appear to be "fighting the language", which is a code smell in my book. Most languages are designed and intended to be used in certain ways - figure out what principles and design/coding guidelines the Lua community uses, and follow those.
I type check public functions in my api. But do not for only internally used functions.
Good type checking:
function ( a , b )
assert ( type ( a ) == "number" , "Invalid a" )
b = b or {}
assert ( type ( b ) == "table" , "B must be a table" )
c = assert ( type ( c ) == "string" ) and c or "default"
end
Keep in mind though, lua also has a bit of "duck" typing: if all that is required in an object is callable, then a table with a __call method should be allowable. Same for an indexable object: a table and a userdata can both be indexed (not to mention the other types).
I don't know Lua either, and it's a little unclear whether you're asking only about checking the argument types [type(b)~="function"] or do you want to check their values too [a==nil], but here's what I do:
If the function can only ever be called by some other functions of your own, and those other functions have already checked the argument, then there's no need to check it again. On the other hand, if your design doesn't guarantee the safety of your arguments then you do need to check it yourself.
Basically, what can go wrong will go wrong, but it will wait until after you've finished testing and have shipped. You can't take chances - you do need a cast-iron guarantee. The key to choosing your guarantee is to inspect your design and see what you really need.
(Even if the function is only called by your own other functions, you might still want to include checks if you think you might later forget about all this and call it from somewhere else without checking.)
I guess it depends on what you plan to do next: if other people should actually write Lua code to work with your code, it would be useful to check arguments (or make it possible by having something like enableDebug). Something useful I came along yesterday is DecoratorsAndDocstrings which makes it possible to document/typecheck functions without altering the implementation.
Another idiom used for this purpose is :
argument = argument or default -- or
argument = type(argument)=="number" and argument or error'I should get a number'
Now we are unsure of what solution is better and decided to ask you: Security checks in Lua - yes or no?
It depends on the type of the project. If your project is small - i.e. only you and your teammate are going to manage it - it is OK to skip the checks, because you should know that you are passing to functions, and it will make the code small and readable. The downside is that when error occurs - and it may happen somewhere totally unexpected - you'll have to spend time debugging and tracing your functions.
On the other hand, if you are creating an library/API to be used by others, it is very appropriate to do type checking. For the user of your library who doesn't know of the internals, it is very helpful to know when he is passing the wrong arguments.
You need to check types where it is important (and should not check where it is not important). Usually I type-check most of the public function arguments plus I add a check anywhere I encounter a type error when debugging.
To shorten the type checks, I use a small arguments() helper function:
https://github.com/lua-nucleo/lua-nucleo/blob/master/lua-nucleo/args.lua
Example:
https://github.com/lua-aplicado/lua-aplicado/blob/master/lua-aplicado/filesystem.lua#L63-66
local write_file = function(filename, new_data)
arguments(
"string", filename,
"string", new_data
)
local file, err = io.open(filename, "w")
if not file then
return nil, err
end
file:write(new_data)
file:close()
file = nil
return true
end
Related
Consider this F# code:
let isSalary employee =
let (fName,lName,Occupation,Department,SalaryType,
HoursPerWeek, AnnualSalary, HourlyWage
) = employee
SalaryType = "Salary"
if(employee.SalaryType = SalaryType) then
true
else
false
Im getting errors in here, any fixes to it?
First things first, please post error messages and a much more specific question. Thanks! But luckily, I can about deduce the error messages from this problem.
Next, if you want to mutate SalaryType after you've deconstructed your employee 8-tuple, you should write using the mutable keyword:
let mutable (fName, lName, Occupation, Department, SalaryType,
HoursPerWeek, AnnualSalary, HourlyWage) = employee
But you shouldn't. This is explained further below.
Next problem: there is no dot notation (no tuple.member) for accessing members of a tuple. It's only possible through deconstruction. So you can't employee.SalaryType.
Here's what looks to be the crux of the problem, and it's a mistake I made many times when I was learning functional programming, and it's a difficult paradigm shift to adapt to. You should not be attempting to mutate data, or in this case, variables. Variables, or values as they are called in F#, shouldn't change, as a broad rule. Functions should be pure.
What this means is that any parameters you pass into a function should not change after leaving the function. The parameter employee should be the same after you return to the calling scope.
There's a few syntactical errors you've made that make it pretty much impossible for me to deduce what you're trying to do in the first place. Please include this in the question.
Also, one last nitpick. As you know, the last expression in an F# function is it's return value. Instead of using an if statement, just return the condition you're testing, like this:
let ...
...
employee.SalaryType = SalaryType <- but remember, you can't use dot notation on tuples; this is just an example
Please read more on
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-reference/
I recently read about lua and addons for the game "World of Warcraft". Since the interface language for addons is lua and I want to learn a new language, I thought this was a good idea.
But there is this one thing I can't get to know. In almost every addon there is this line on the top which looks for me like a constructor that creates a object on which member I can have access to. This line goes something like this:
object = {...}
I know that if a function returns several values (which is IMHO one huge plus for lua) and I don't want to store them seperatly in several values, I can just write
myArray = {SomeFunction()}
where myArray is now a table that contains the values and I can access the values by indexing it (myArray[4]). Since the elements are not explicitly typed because only the values themselfe hold their type, this is fine for lua. I also know that "..." can be used for a parameter array in a function for the case that the function does not know how many parameter it gets when called (like String[] args in java). But what in gods name is this "curly bracket - dot, dot, dot - curly bracket" used for???
You've already said all there is to it in your question:
{...} is really just a combination of the two behaviors you described: It creates a table containing all the arguments, so
function foo(a, b, ...)
return {...}
end
foo(1, 2, 3, 4, 5) --> {3, 4, 5}
Basically, ... is just a normal expression, just like a function call that returns multiple values. The following two expressions work in the exact same way:
local a, b, c = ...
local d, e, f = some_function()
Keep in mind though that this has some performance implications, so maybe don't use it in a function that gets called like 1000 times a second ;)
EDIT:
Note that this really doesn't apply just to "functions". Functions are actually more of a syntax feature than anything else. Under the hood, Lua only knows of chunks, which are what both functions and .lua files get turned into. So, if you run a Lua script, the entire script gets turned into a chunk and is therefore no different than a function.
In terms of code, the difference is that with a function you can specify names for its arguments outside of its code, whereas with a file you're already at the outermost level of code; there's no "outside" a file.
Luckily, all Lua files, when they're loaded as a chunk, are automatically variadic, meaning they get the ... to access their argument list.
When you call a file like lua script.lua foo bar, inside script.lua, ... will actually contain the two arguments "foo" and "bar", so that's also a convenient way to access arguments when using Lua for standalone scripts.
In your example, it's actually quite similar. Most likely, somewhere else your script gets loaded with load(), which returns a function that you can call—and, you guessed it, pass arguments to.
Imagine the following situation:
function foo(a, b)
print(b)
print(a)
end
foo('hello', 'world')
This is almost equivalent to
function foo(...)
local a, b = ...
print(b)
print(a)
end
foo('hello', 'world')
Which is 100% (Except maybe in performance) equivalent to
-- Note that [[ string ]] is just a convenient syntax for multiline "strings"
foo = load([[
local a, b = ...
print(b)
print(a)
]])
foo('hello', 'world')
From the Lua 5.1 Reference manual then {...} means the arguments passed to the program. In your case those are probably the arguments passed from the game to the addon.
You can see references to this in this question and this thread.
Put the following text at the start of the file:
local args = {...}
for __, arg in ipairs(args) do
print(arg)
end
And it reveals that:
args[1] is the name of the addon
args[2] is a (empty) table passed by reference to all files in the same addon
Information inserted to args[2] is therefore available to different files.
What are the benefits and drawbacks of the ?: operator as opposed to the standard if-else statement. The obvious ones being:
Conditional ?: Operator
Shorter and more concise when dealing with direct value comparisons and assignments
Doesn't seem to be as flexible as the if/else construct
Standard If/Else
Can be applied to more situations (such as function calls)
Often are unnecessarily long
Readability seems to vary for each depending on the statement. For a little while after first being exposed to the ?: operator, it took me some time to digest exactly how it worked. Would you recommend using it wherever possible, or sticking to if/else given that I work with many non-programmers?
I would basically recommend using it only when the resulting statement is extremely short and represents a significant increase in conciseness over the if/else equivalent without sacrificing readability.
Good example:
int result = Check() ? 1 : 0;
Bad example:
int result = FirstCheck() ? 1 : SecondCheck() ? 1 : ThirdCheck() ? 1 : 0;
This is pretty much covered by the other answers, but "it's an expression" doesn't really explain why that is so useful...
In languages like C++ and C#, you can define local readonly fields (within a method body) using them. This is not possible with a conventional if/then statement because the value of a readonly field has to be assigned within that single statement:
readonly int speed = (shiftKeyDown) ? 10 : 1;
is not the same as:
readonly int speed;
if (shifKeyDown)
speed = 10; // error - can't assign to a readonly
else
speed = 1; // error
In a similar way you can embed a tertiary expression in other code. As well as making the source code more compact (and in some cases more readable as a result) it can also make the generated machine code more compact and efficient:
MoveCar((shiftKeyDown) ? 10 : 1);
...may generate less code than having to call the same method twice:
if (shiftKeyDown)
MoveCar(10);
else
MoveCar(1);
Of course, it's also a more convenient and concise form (less typing, less repetition, and can reduce the chance of errors if you have to duplicate chunks of code in an if/else). In clean "common pattern" cases like this:
object thing = (reference == null) ? null : reference.Thing;
... it is simply faster to read/parse/understand (once you're used to it) than the long-winded if/else equivalent, so it can help you to 'grok' code faster.
Of course, just because it is useful does not mean it is the best thing to use in every case. I'd advise only using it for short bits of code where the meaning is clear (or made more clear) by using ?: - if you use it in more complex code, or nest ternary operators within each other it can make code horribly difficult to read.
I usually choose a ternary operator when I'd have a lot of duplicate code otherwise.
if (a > 0)
answer = compute(a, b, c, d, e);
else
answer = compute(-a, b, c, d, e);
With a ternary operator, this could be accomplished with the following.
answer = compute(a > 0 ? a : -a, b, c, d, e);
I find it particularly helpful when doing web development if I want to set a variable to a value sent in the request if it is defined or to some default value if it is not.
A really cool usage is:
x = foo ? 1 :
bar ? 2 :
baz ? 3 :
4;
Sometimes it can make the assignment of a bool value easier to read at first glance:
// With
button.IsEnabled = someControl.HasError ? false : true;
// Without
button.IsEnabled = !someControl.HasError;
I'd recommend limiting the use of the ternary(?:) operator to simple single line assignment if/else logic. Something resembling this pattern:
if(<boolCondition>) {
<variable> = <value>;
}
else {
<variable> = <anotherValue>;
}
Could be easily converted to:
<variable> = <boolCondition> ? <value> : <anotherValue>;
I would avoid using the ternary operator in situations that require if/else if/else, nested if/else, or if/else branch logic that results in the evaluation of multiple lines. Applying the ternary operator in these situations would likely result in unreadable, confusing, and unmanageable code. Hope this helps.
The conditional operator is great for short conditions, like this:
varA = boolB ? valC : valD;
I use it occasionally because it takes less time to write something that way... unfortunately, this branching can sometimes be missed by another developer browsing over your code. Plus, code isn't usually that short, so I usually help readability by putting the ? and : on separate lines, like this:
doSomeStuffToSomething(shouldSomethingBeDone()
? getTheThingThatNeedsStuffDone()
: getTheOtherThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
However, the big advantage to using if/else blocks (and why I prefer them) is that it's easier to come in later and add some additional logic to the branch,
if (shouldSomethingBeDone()) {
doSomeStuffToSomething(getTheThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
doSomeAdditionalStuff();
} else {
doSomeStuffToSomething(getTheOtherThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
}
or add another condition:
if (shouldSomethingBeDone()) {
doSomeStuffToSomething(getTheThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
doSomeAdditionalStuff();
} else if (shouldThisOtherThingBeDone()){
doSomeStuffToSomething(getTheOtherThingThatNeedsStuffDone());
}
So, in the end, it's about convenience for you now (shorter to use :?) vs. convenience for you (and others) later. It's a judgment call... but like all other code-formatting issues, the only real rule is to be consistent, and be visually courteous to those who have to maintain (or grade!) your code.
(all code eye-compiled)
One thing to recognize when using the ternary operator that it is an expression not a statement.
In functional languages like scheme the distinction doesn't exists:
(if (> a b) a b)
Conditional ?: Operator
"Doesn't seem to be as flexible as the if/else construct"
In functional languages it is.
When programming in imperative languages I apply the ternary operator in situations where I typically would use expressions (assignment, conditional statements, etc).
While the above answers are valid, and I agree with readability being important, there are 2 further points to consider:
In C#6, you can have expression-bodied methods.
This makes it particularly concise to use the ternary:
string GetDrink(DayOfWeek day)
=> day == DayOfWeek.Friday
? "Beer" : "Tea";
Behaviour differs when it comes to implicit type conversion.
If you have types T1 and T2 that can both be implicitly converted to T, then the below does not work:
T GetT() => true ? new T1() : new T2();
(because the compiler tries to determine the type of the ternary expression, and there is no conversion between T1 and T2.)
On the other hand, the if/else version below does work:
T GetT()
{
if (true) return new T1();
return new T2();
}
because T1 is converted to T and so is T2
If I'm setting a value and I know it will always be one line of code to do so, I typically use the ternary (conditional) operator. If there's a chance my code and logic will change in the future, I use an if/else as it's more clear to other programmers.
Of further interest to you may be the ?? operator.
The advantage of the conditional operator is that it is an operator. In other words, it returns a value. Since if is a statement, it cannot return a value.
There is some performance benefit of using the the ? operator in eg. MS Visual C++, but this is a really a compiler specific thing. The compiler can actually optimize out the conditional branch in some cases.
The scenario I most find myself using it is for defaulting values and especially in returns
return someIndex < maxIndex ? someIndex : maxIndex;
Those are really the only places I find it nice, but for them I do.
Though if you're looking for a boolean this might sometimes look like an appropriate thing to do:
bool hey = whatever < whatever_else ? true : false;
Because it's so easy to read and understand, but that idea should always be tossed for the more obvious:
bool hey = (whatever < whatever_else);
If you need multiple branches on the same condition, use an if:
if (A == 6)
f(1, 2, 3);
else
f(4, 5, 6);
If you need multiple branches with different conditions, then if statement count would snowball, you'll want to use the ternary:
f( (A == 6)? 1: 4, (B == 6)? 2: 5, (C == 6)? 3: 6 );
Also, you can use the ternary operator in initialization.
const int i = (A == 6)? 1 : 4;
Doing that with if is very messy:
int i_temp;
if (A == 6)
i_temp = 1;
else
i_temp = 4;
const int i = i_temp;
You can't put the initialization inside the if/else, because it changes the scope. But references and const variables can only be bound at initialization.
The ternary operator can be included within an rvalue, whereas an if-then-else cannot; on the other hand, an if-then-else can execute loops and other statements, whereas the ternary operator can only execute (possibly void) rvalues.
On a related note, the && and || operators allow some execution patterns which are harder to implement with if-then-else. For example, if one has several functions to call and wishes to execute a piece of code if any of them fail, it can be done nicely using the && operator. Doing it without that operator will either require redundant code, a goto, or an extra flag variable.
With C# 7, you can use the new ref locals feature to simplify the conditional assignment of ref-compatible variables. So now, not only can you do:
int i = 0;
T b = default(T), c = default(T);
// initialization of C#7 'ref-local' variable using a conditional r-value⁽¹⁾
ref T a = ref (i == 0 ? ref b : ref c);
...but also the extremely wonderful:
// assignment of l-value⁽²⁾ conditioned by C#7 'ref-locals'
(i == 0 ? ref b : ref c) = a;
That line of code assigns the value of a to either b or c, depending on the value of i.
Notes
1. r-value is the right-hand side of an assignment, the value that gets assigned.
2. l-value is the left-hand side of an assignment, the variable that receives the assigned value.
In my Lua script I'm trying to create a function with a variable number of arguments. As far as I know it should work like below, but somehow I get an error with Lua 5.1 on the TI-NSpire (global arg is nil). What am I doing wrong? Thanks!
function equation:init(...)
self.equation = arg[1]
self.answers = {}
self.pipe = {arg[1]}
self.selected = 1
-- Loop arguments to add answers.
for i = 2, #arg do
table.insert(self.answers, arg[i])
end
end
instance = equation({"x^2+8=12", -4, 4})
Luis's answer is right, if terser than a beginner to the language might hope for. I'll try to elaborate on it a bit, hopefully without creating additional confusion.
Your question is in the context of Lua embedded in a specific model of TI calculator. So there will be details that differ from standalone Lua, but mostly those details will relate to what libraries and functions are made available in your environment. It is unusual (although since Lua is open source, possible) for embedded versions of Lua to differ significantly from the standalone Lua distributed by its authors. (The Lua Binaries is a repository of binaries for many platforms. Lua for Windows is a batteries-included complete distribution for Windows.)
Your sample code has a confounding factor the detail that it needs to interface with a class system provided by the calculator framework. That detail mostly appears as an absence of connection between your equation object and the equation:init() function being called. Since there are techniques that can glue that up, it is just a distraction.
Your question as I understand it boils down to a confusion about how variadic functions (functions with a variable number of arguments) are declared and implemented in Lua. From your comment on Luis's answer, you have been reading the online edition of Programming in Lua (aka PiL). You cited section 5.2. PiL is a good source for background on the language. Unfortunately, variadic functions are one of the features that has been in flux. The edition of the book on line is correct as of Lua version 5.0, but the TI calculator is probably running Lua 5.1.4.
In Lua 5, a variadic function is declared with a parameter list that ends with the symbol ... which stands for the rest of the arguments. In Lua 5.0, the call was implemented with a "magic" local variable named arg which contained a table containing the arguments matching the .... This required that every variadic function create a table when called, which is a source of unnecessary overhead and pressure on the garbage collector. So in Lua 5.1, the implementation was changed: the ... can be used directly in the called function as an alias to the matching arguments, but no table is actually created. Instead, if the count of arguments is needed, you write select("#",...), and if the value of the nth argument is desired you write select(n,...).
A confounding factor in your example comes back to the class system. You want to declare the function equation:init(...). Since this declaration uses the colon syntax, it is equivalent to writing equation.init(self,...). So, when called eventually via the class framework's use of the __call metamethod, the real first argument is named self and the zero or more actual arguments will match the ....
As noted by Amr's comment below, the expression select(n,...) actually returns all the values from the nth argument on, which is particularly useful in this case for constructing self.answers, but also leads to a possible bug in the initialization of self.pipe.
Here is my revised approximation of what you are trying to achieve in your definition of equation:init(), but do note that I don't have one of the TI calculators at hand and this is untested:
function equation:init(...)
self.equation = select(1, ...)
self.pipe = { (select(1,...)) }
self.selected = 1
self.answers = { select(2,...) }
end
In the revised version shown above I have written {(select(1,...))} to create a table containing exactly one element which is the first argument, and {select(2,...)} to create a table containing all the remaining arguments. While there is a limit to the number of values that can be inserted into a table in that way, that limit is related to the number of return values of a function or the number of parameters that can be passed to a function and so cannot be exceeded by the reference to .... Note that this might not be the case in general, and writing { unpack(t) } can result in not copying all of the array part of t.
A slightly less efficient way to write the function would be to write a loop over the passed arguments, which is the version in my original answer. That would look like the following:
function equation:init(...)
self.equation = select(1, ...)
self.pipe = {(select(1,...))}
self.selected = 1
-- Loop arguments to add answers.
local t = {}
for i = 2, select("#",...) do
t[#t+1] = select(i,...)
end
self.answers = t
end
Try
function equation:init(...)
local arg={...}
--- original code here
end
I've noticed that strings, numbers, bool and nil data seem to be straight forward to work with. But when it comes to functions, tables, etc. you get a reference instead of the actual object.
Is there a name for this phenomenon? Is there terminology that describes the distinction between the way these 2 sets of types are handled?
a = "hi"
b = 1
c = true
d = nil
e = {"joe", "mike"}
f = function () end
g = coroutine.create(function () print("hi") end)
print(a) --> hi
print(b) --> 1
print(c) --> true
print(d) --> nil
print(e) --> table: 0x103350
print(f) --> function: 0x1035a0
print(g) --> thread: 0x103d30
What you're seeing here is an attempt by the compiler to return a string representation of the object. For simple object types the __tostring implementation is provided already, but for other more complex types there is no intuitive way of returning a string representation.
See Lua: give custom userdata a tostring method for more information which might help!
.Net (Microsoft Visual Basic, Visual C++ and C#) would describe them as value types and reference types, where reference types refer to a value by reference and value types hold the actual values.
I don't think lua puts too much thought into it given that it's supposed to be a simpler interpreted language and ultimately it doesn't matter as much because lua is a fairly weakly typed language (ie it doesn't enforce type safety beyond throwing an error when you try to use operations on types they can't be used on).
Either way, most programmers in my experience understand them as 'value types' and 'reference types', so I'd say they're the two terms it's best to stick with.
In Lua, numbers are values, everything else is accessible by reference only. But the different behavior on print is just because there's no way to actually print functions (and while tables could have a default behavior for print, they don't - possibly because they're allowed to have cyclic references).
What you are seeing is the behavior of the print function. It will its arguments by using tostring on them. print could be implemented by using io.write like this (simplified a bit):
function print(...)
local args = {n = select('#',...), ...}
for i=1,args.n do
io.write(tostring(args[i]), '\t')
end
io.write('\n')
end
You should notice the call to tostring. By default it returns the representation of numbers, booleans and strings. Since there is no sane default way to convert other types to a string, it only displays the type and a useless internal pointer to the object (so that you can differentiate instances). You can view the source here.
You will be surprised, but there is no value/reference distinction in Lua. :-)
Please read here and here.