I need a base converter function for Lua. I need to convert from base 10 to base 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11...36 how can i to this?
In the string to number direction, the function tonumber() takes an optional second argument that specifies the base to use, which may range from 2 to 36 with the obvious meaning for digits in bases greater than 10.
In the number to string direction, this can be done slightly more efficiently than Nikolaus's answer by something like this:
local floor,insert = math.floor, table.insert
function basen(n,b)
n = floor(n)
if not b or b == 10 then return tostring(n) end
local digits = "0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ"
local t = {}
local sign = ""
if n < 0 then
sign = "-"
n = -n
end
repeat
local d = (n % b) + 1
n = floor(n / b)
insert(t, 1, digits:sub(d,d))
until n == 0
return sign .. table.concat(t,"")
end
This creates fewer garbage strings to collect by using table.concat() instead of repeated calls to the string concatenation operator ... Although it makes little practical difference for strings this small, this idiom should be learned because otherwise building a buffer in a loop with the concatenation operator will actually tend to O(n2) performance while table.concat() has been designed to do substantially better.
There is an unanswered question as to whether it is more efficient to push the digits on a stack in the table t with calls to table.insert(t,1,digit), or to append them to the end with t[#t+1]=digit, followed by a call to string.reverse() to put the digits in the right order. I'll leave the benchmarking to the student. Note that although the code I pasted here does run and appears to get correct answers, there may other opportunities to tune it further.
For example, the common case of base 10 is culled off and handled with the built in tostring() function. But similar culls can be done for bases 8 and 16 which have conversion specifiers for string.format() ("%o" and "%x", respectively).
Also, neither Nikolaus's solution nor mine handle non-integers particularly well. I emphasize that here by forcing the value n to an integer with math.floor() at the beginning.
Correctly converting a general floating point value to any base (even base 10) is fraught with subtleties, which I leave as an exercise to the reader.
you can use a loop to convert an integer into a string containting the required base. for bases below 10 use the following code, if you need a base larger than that you need to add a line that mapps the result of x % base to a character (usign an array for example)
x = 1234
r = ""
base = 8
while x > 0 do
r = "" .. (x % base ) .. r
x = math.floor(x / base)
end
print( r );
Related
I'm trying to create a list of integers, similar to python where one would say
x = input("Enter String").split() # 1 2 3 5
x = list(map(int,x)) # Converts x = "1","2",3","5" to x = 1,2,3,5
Here's my code asking for the input, then splitting the input into a table, i need help converting the contents of the table to integers as they're being referenced later in a function, and i'm getting a string vs integer comparison error. I've tried changing the split for-loop to take a number but that doesn't work, I'm familiar with a python conversion but not with Lua so I'm looking for some guidance in converting my table or handling this better.
function main()
print("Hello Welcome the to Change Maker - LUA Edition")
print("Enter a series of change denominations, separated by spaces")
input = io.read()
deno = {}
for word in input:gmatch("%w+") do table.insert(deno,word) end
end
--Would This Work?:
--for num in input:gmatch("%d+") do table.insert(deno,num) end
Just convert your number-strings to numbers using tonumber
local number = tonumber("1")
So
for num in input:gmatch("%d+") do table.insert(deno,tonumber(num)) end
Should do the trick
I am working on programming a Markov chain in Lua, and one element of this requires me to uniformly generate random numbers. Here is a simplified example to illustrate my question:
example = function(x)
local r = math.random(1,10)
print(r)
return x[r]
end
exampleArray = {"a","b","c","d","e","f","g","h","i","j"}
print(example(exampleArray))
My issue is that when I re-run this program multiple times (mash F5) the exact same random number is generated resulting in the example function selecting the exact same array element. However, if I include many calls to the example function within the single program by repeating the print line at the end many times I get suitable random results.
This is not my intention as a proper Markov pseudo-random text generator should be able to run the same program with the same inputs multiple times and output different pseudo-random text every time. I have tried resetting the seed using math.randomseed(os.time()) and this makes it so the random number distribution is no longer uniform. My goal is to be able to re-run the above program and receive a randomly selected number every time.
You need to run math.randomseed() once before using math.random(), like this:
math.randomseed(os.time())
From your comment that you saw the first number is still the same. This is caused by the implementation of random generator in some platforms.
The solution is to pop some random numbers before using them for real:
math.randomseed(os.time())
math.random(); math.random(); math.random()
Note that the standard C library random() is usually not so uniformly random, a better solution is to use a better random generator if your platform provides one.
Reference: Lua Math Library
Standard C random numbers generator used in Lua isn't guananteed to be good for simulation. The words "Markov chain" suggest that you may need a better one. Here's a generator widely used for Monte-Carlo calculations:
local A1, A2 = 727595, 798405 -- 5^17=D20*A1+A2
local D20, D40 = 1048576, 1099511627776 -- 2^20, 2^40
local X1, X2 = 0, 1
function rand()
local U = X2*A2
local V = (X1*A2 + X2*A1) % D20
V = (V*D20 + U) % D40
X1 = math.floor(V/D20)
X2 = V - X1*D20
return V/D40
end
It generates a number between 0 and 1, so r = math.floor(rand()*10) + 1 would go into your example.
(That's multiplicative random number generator with period 2^38, multiplier 5^17 and modulo 2^40, original Pascal code by http://osmf.sscc.ru/~smp/)
math.randomseed(os.clock()*100000000000)
for i=1,3 do
math.random(10000, 65000)
end
Always results in new random numbers. Changing the seed value will ensure randomness. Don't follow os.time() because it is the epoch time and changes after one second but os.clock() won't have the same value at any close instance.
There's the Luaossl library solution: (https://github.com/wahern/luaossl)
local rand = require "openssl.rand"
local randominteger
if rand.ready() then -- rand has been properly seeded
-- Returns a cryptographically strong uniform random integer in the interval [0, n−1].
randominteger = rand.uniform(99) + 1 -- randomizes an integer from range 1 to 100
end
http://25thandclement.com/~william/projects/luaossl.pdf
I have an SPSS variable containing lines like:
|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|18|20|21|22|23|24|25|26|27|28|29|
Every line starts with pipe, and ends with one. I need to refactor it into boolean variables as the following:
var var1 var2 var3 var4 var5
|2|4|5| 0 1 0 1 1
I have tried to do it with a loop like:
loop # = 1 to 72.
compute var# = SUBSTR(var,2#,1).
end loop.
exe.
My code won't work with 2 or more digits long numbers and also it won't place the values into their respective variables, so I've tried nest the char.substr(var,char.rindex(var,'|') + 1) into another loop with no luck because it still won't allow me to recognize the variable number.
How can I do it?
This looks like a nice job for the DO REPEAT command. However the type conversion is somewhat tricky:
DO REPEAT var#i=var1 TO var72
/i=1 TO 72.
COMPUTE var#i = CHAR.INDEX(var,CONCAT("|",LTRIM(STRING(i,F2.0)),"|"))>0).
END REPEAT.
Explanation: Let's go from the inside to the outside:
STRING(value,F2.0) converts the numeric values into a string of two digits (with a leading white space where the number consist of just one digit), e.g. 2 -> " 2".
LTRIM() removes the leading whitespaces, e.g. " 2" -> "2".
CONCAT() concatenates strings. In the above code it adds the "|" before and after the number, e.g. "2" -> "|2|"
CHAR.INDEX(stringvar,searchstring) returns the position at which the searchstring was found. It returns 0 if the searchstring wasn't found.
CHAR.INDEX(stringvar,searchstring)>0 returns a boolean value indicating if the searchstring was found or not.
It's easier to do the manipulations in Python than native SPSS syntax.
You can use SPSSINC TRANS extension for this purpose.
/* Example data*/.
data list free / TextStr (a99).
begin data.
"|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|18|20|21|22|23|24|25|26|27|28|29|"
end data.
/* defining function to achieve task */.
begin program.
def runTask(x):
numbers=map(int,filter(None,[i.strip() for i in x.lstrip('|').split("|")]))
answer=[1 if i in numbers else 0 for i in xrange(1,max(numbers)+1)]
return answer
end program.
/* Run job*/.
spssinc trans result = V1 to V30 type=0 /formula "runTask(TextStr)".
exe.
Suppose I have a factor variable with labels "a" "b" and "c" and want to see which observations have a label of "b". Stata refuses to parse
gen isb = myfactor == "b"
Sure, there is literally a "type mismatch", since my factor is encoded as an integer and so cannot be compared to the string "b". However, it wouldn't kill Stata to (i) perform the obvious parse or (ii) provide a translator function so I can write the comparison as label(myfactor) == "b". Using decode to (re)create a string variable defeats the purpose of encoding, which is to save space and make computations more efficient, right?
I hadn't really expected the comparison above to work, but I at least figured there would be a one- or two-line approach. Here is what I have found so far. There is a nice macro ("extended") function that maps the other way (from an integer to a label, seen below as local labi: label ...). Here's the solution using it:
// sample data
clear
input str5 mystr int mynum
a 5
b 5
b 6
c 4
end
encode mystr, gen(myfactor)
// first, how many groups are there?
by myfactor, sort: gen ng = _n == 1
replace ng = sum(ng)
scalar ng = ng[_N]
drop ng
// now, which code corresponds to "b"?
forvalues i = 1/`=ng'{
local labi: label myfactor `i'
if "b" == "`labi'" {
scalar bcode = `i'
break
}
}
di bcode
The second step is what irks me, but I'm sure there's a also faster, more idiomatic way of performing the first step. Can I grab the length of the label vector, for example?
An example:
clear all
set more off
sysuse auto
gen isdom = 1 if foreign == "Domestic":`:value label foreign'
list foreign isdom in 1/60
This creates a variable called isdom and it will equal 1 if foreigns's value label is equal to "Domestic". It uses an extended macro function.
From [U] 18.3.8 Macro expressions:
Also, typing
command that makes reference to `:extended macro function'
is equivalent to
local macroname : extended macro function
command that makes reference to `macroname'
This explains one of the two : in the offered syntax. The other can be explained by
... to specify value labels directly in an expression, rather than through
the underlying numeric value ... You specify the label in double quotes
(""), followed by a colon (:), followed by the name of the value
label.
The quote is from Stata tip 14: Using value labels in expressions, by Kenneth Higbee, The Stata Journal (2004). Freely available at http://www.stata-journal.com/sjpdf.html?articlenum=dm0009
Edit
On computing the number of distinct observations, another way is:
by myfactor, sort: gen ng = _n == 1
count if ng
scalar sc_ng = r(N)
display sc_ng
But yours is fine. In fact, it is documented here: http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/data-management/number-of-distinct-observations/, along with more methods and comments.
I'm writing a LSL to Lua translator, and I'm having all sorts of trouble implementing incrementing and decrementing operators. LSL has such things using the usual C like syntax (x++, x--, ++x, --x), but Lua does not. Just to avoid massive amounts of typing, I refer to these sorts of operators as "crements". In the below code, I'll use "..." to represent other parts of the expression.
... x += 1 ...
Wont work, coz Lua only has simple assignment.
... x = x + 1 ...
Wont work coz that's a statement, and Lua can't use statements in expressions. LSL can use crements in expressions.
function preIncrement(x) x = x + 1; return x; end
... preIncrement(x) ...
While it does provide the correct value in the expression, Lua is pass by value for numbers, so the original variable is not changed. If I could get this to actually change the variable, then all is good. Messing with the environment might not be such a good idea, dunno what scope x is. I think I'll investigate that next. The translator could output scope details.
Assuming the above function exists -
... x = preIncrement(x) ...
Wont work for the "it's a statement" reason.
Other solutions start to get really messy.
x = preIncrement(x)
... x ...
Works fine, except when the original LSL code is something like this -
while (doOneThing(x++))
{
doOtherThing(x);
}
Which becomes a whole can of worms. Using tables in the function -
function preIncrement(x) x[1] = x[1] + 1; return x[1]; end
temp = {x}
... preincrement(temp) ...
x = temp[1]
Is even messier, and has the same problems.
Starting to look like I might have to actually analyse the surrounding code instead of just doing simple translations to sort out what the correct way to implement any given crement will be. Anybody got any simple ideas?
I think to really do this properly you're going to have to do some more detailed analysis, and splitting of some expressions into multiple statements, although many can probably be translated pretty straight-forwardly.
Note that at least in C, you can delay post-increments/decrements to the next "sequence point", and put pre-increments/decrements before the previous sequence point; sequence points are only located in a few places: between statements, at "short-circuit operators" (&& and ||), etc. (more info here)
So it's fine to replace x = *y++ + z * f (); with { x = *y + z * f(); y = y + 1; }—the user isn't allowed to assume that y will be incremented before anything else in the statement, only that the value used in *y will be y before it's incremented. Similarly, x = *--y + z * f(); can be replaced with { y = y - 1; x = *y + z * f (); }
Lua is designed to be pretty much impervious to implementations of this sort of thing. It may be done as kind of a compiler/interpreter issue, since the interpreter can know that variables only change when a statement is executed.
There's no way to implement this kind of thing in Lua. Not in the general case. You could do it for global variables by passing a string to the increment function. But obviously it wouldn't work for locals, or for variables that are in a table that is itself global.
Lua doesn't want you to do it; it's best to find a way to work within the restriction. And that means code analysis.
Your proposed solution only will work when your Lua variables are all global. Unless this is something LSL also does, you will get trouble translating LSL programs that use variables called the same way in different places.
Lua is only able of modifying one lvalue per statement - tables being passed to functions are the only exception to this rule. You could use a local table to store all locals, and that would help you out with the pre-...-crements; they can be evaluated before the expression they are contained in is evauated. But the post-...-crements have to be evaluated later on, which is simply not possible in lua - at least not without some ugly code involving anonymous functions.
So you have one options: you must accept that some LSL statements will get translated to several Lua statements.
Say you have a LSL statement with increments like this:
f(integer x) {
integer y = x + x++;
return (y + ++y)
}
You can translate this to a Lua statement like this:
function f(x) {
local post_incremented_x = x + 1 -- extra statement 1 for post increment
local y = x + post_incremented_x
x = post_incremented_x -- extra statement 2 for post increment
local pre_incremented_y = y + 1
return y + pre_incremented_y
y = pre_incremented_y -- this line will never be executed
}
So you basically will have to add two statements per ..-crement used in your statements. For complex structures, that will mean calculating the order in which the expressions are evaluated.
For what is worth, I like with having post decrements and predecrements as individual statements in languages. But I consider it a flaw of the language when they can also be used as expressions. The syntactic sugar quickly becomes semantic diabetes.
After some research and thinking I've come up with an idea that might work.
For globals -
function preIncrement(x)
_G[x] = _G[x] + 1
return _G[x]
end
... preIncrement("x") ...
For locals and function parameters (which are locals to) I know at the time I'm parsing the crement that it is local, I can store four flags to tell me which of the four crements is being used in the variables AST structure. Then when it comes time to output the variables definition, I can output something like this -
local x;
function preIncrement_x() x = x + 1; return x; end
function postDecrement_x() local y = x; x = x - 1; return y; end
... preIncrement_x() ...
In most of your assessment of configurability to the code. You are trying to hard pass data types from one into another. And call it a 'translator'. And in all of this you miss regex and other pattern match capacities. Which are far more present in LUA than LSL. And since the LSL code is being passed into LUA. Try using them, along with other functions. Which would define the work more as a translator, than a hard pass.
Yes I know this was asked a while ago. Though, for other viewers of this topic. Never forget the environments you are working in. EVER. Use what they give you to the best ability you can.