Is it possible in lua to execute a function from a string representing its name?
i.e: I have the string x = "foo", is it possible to do x() ?
If yes what is the syntax ?
To call a function in the global namespace (as mentioned by #THC4k) is easily done, and does not require loadstring().
x='foo'
_G[x]() -- calls foo from the global namespace
You would need to use loadstring() (or walk each table) if the function in another table, such as if x='math.sqrt'.
If loadstring() is used you would want to not only append parenthesis with ellipse (...) to allow for parameters, but also add return to the front.
x='math.sqrt'
print(assert(loadstring('return '..x..'(...)'))(25)) --> 5
or walk the tables:
function findfunction(x)
assert(type(x) == "string")
local f=_G
for v in x:gmatch("[^%.]+") do
if type(f) ~= "table" then
return nil, "looking for '"..v.."' expected table, not "..type(f)
end
f=f[v]
end
if type(f) == "function" then
return f
else
return nil, "expected function, not "..type(f)
end
end
x='math.sqrt'
print(assert(findfunction(x))(121)) -->11
I frequently put a bunch of functions in a table:
functions = {
f1 = function(arg) print("function one: "..arg) end,
f2 = function(arg) print("function two: "..arg..arg) end,
...,
fn = function(arg) print("function N: argh") end,
}
Then you can use a string as an table index and run your function like this
print(functions["f1"]("blabla"))
print(functions["f2"]("blabla"))
This is the result:
function one: blabla
function two: blablablabla
I find this to be cleaner than using loadstring(). If you don't want to create a special function table you can use _G['foo'].
loadstring is not the answer here. For starters you would need a return in the string, and other details I won't go into.
THC4k has the right idea; if you have the function name in the variable x, then the call you want is
_G[x](arg1, arg2, ...)
Names are not unique, there can be many functions names foo in different namespaces. But _G['foo'] is foo in the global namespace.
It sounds like you want to do an 'eval', which is supported in Lua like so:
assert(loadstring(x))()
You'll probably want to concatenate the "()" onto x first, though.
Related
I would like to save all my variables and dual variables of my finished lp-optimization in an efficient manner. My current solution works, but is neither elegant nor suited for larger optimization programs with many variables and constraints because I define and push! every single variable into DataFrames separately. Is there a way to iterate through the variables using all_variables() and all_constraints() for the duals? While iterating, I would like to push the results into DataFrames with the variable index name as columns and save the DataFrame in a Dict().
A conceptual example would be for variables:
Result_vars = Dict()
for vari in all_variables(Model)
Resul_vars["vari"] = DataFrame(data=[indexval(vari),value(vari)],columns=[index(vari),"Value"])
end
An example of the appearance of the declared variable in JuMP and DataFrame:
#variable(Model, p[t=s_time,n=s_n,m=s_m], lower_bound=0,base_name="Expected production")
And Result_vars[p] shall approximately look like:
t,n,m,Value
1,1,1,50
2,1,1,60
3,1,1,145
Presumably, you could go something like:
x = all_variables(model)
DataFrame(
name = variable_name.(x),
Value = value.(x),
)
If you want some structure more complicated, you need to write custom code.
T, N, M, primal_solution = [], [], [], []
for t in s_time, n in s_n, m in s_m
push!(T, t)
push!(N, n)
push!(M, m)
push!(primal_solution, value(p[t, n, m]))
end
DataFrame(t = T, n = N, m = M, Value = primal_solution)
See here for constraints: https://jump.dev/JuMP.jl/stable/constraints/#Accessing-constraints-from-a-model-1. You want something like:
for (F, S) in list_of_constraint_types(model)
for con in all_constraints(model, F, S)
#show dual(con)
end
end
Thanks to Oscar, I have built a solution that could help to automatize the extraction of results.
The solution is build around a naming convention using base_name in the variable definition. One can copy paste the variable definition into base_name followed by :. E.g.:
#variable(Model, p[t=s_time,n=s_n,m=s_m], lower_bound=0,base_name="p[t=s_time,n=s_n,m=s_m]:")
The naming convention and syntax can be changed, comments can e.g. be added, or one can just not define a base_name. The following function divides the base_name into variable name, sets (if needed) and index:
function var_info(vars::VariableRef)
split_conv = [":","]","[",","]
x_str = name(vars)
if occursin(":",x_str)
x_str = replace(x_str, " " => "") #Deletes all spaces
x_name,x_index = split(x_str,split_conv[1]) #splits raw variable name+ sets and index
x_name = replace(x_name, split_conv[2] => "")
x_name,s_set = split(x_name,split_conv[3])#splits raw variable name and sets
x_set = split(s_set,split_conv[4])
x_index = replace(x_index, split_conv[2] => "")
x_index = replace(x_index, split_conv[3] => "")
x_index = split(x_index,split_conv[4])
return (x_name,x_set,x_index)
else
println("Var base_name not properly defined. Special Syntax required in form var[s=set]: ")
end
end
The next functions create the columns and the index values plus columns for the primal solution ("Value").
function create_columns(x)
col_ind=[String(var_info(x)[2][col]) for col in 1:size(var_info(x)[2])[1]]
cols = append!(["Value"],col_ind)
return cols
end
function create_index(x)
col_ind=[String(var_info(x)[3][ind]) for ind in 1:size(var_info(x)[3])[1]]
index = append!([string(value(x))],col_ind)
return index
end
function create_sol_matrix(varss,model)
nested_sol_array=[create_index(xx) for xx in all_variables(model) if varss[1]==var_info(xx)[1]]
sol_array=hcat(nested_sol_array...)
return sol_array
end
Finally, the last function creates the Dict which holds all results of the variables in DataFrames in the previously mentioned style:
function create_var_dict(model)
Variable_dict=Dict(vars[1]
=>DataFrame(Dict(vars[2][1][cols]
=>create_sol_matrix(vars,model)[cols,:] for cols in 1:size(vars[2][1])[1]))
for vars in unique([[String(var_info(x)[1]),[create_columns(x)]] for x in all_variables(model)]))
return Variable_dict
end
When those functions are added to your script, you can simply retrieve all the solutions of the variables after the optimization by calling create_var_dict():
var_dict = create_var_dict(model)
Be aware: they are nested functions. When you change the naming convention, you might have to update the other functions as well. If you add more comments you have to avoid using [, ], and ,.
This solution is obviously far from optimal. I believe there could be a more efficient solution falling back to MOI.
local Public = {}
function Public.new(ent)
local State = {}
function State:update(player)
ent:setLinearVelocity(0,0)
end
function State:start(player)
ent.fixedRotation = true
self.attackTimer = _G.m.addTimer(200, function()
ent:setState('attacking', player)
end)
end
function State:exit(player)
ent.fixedRotation = false
timer.cancel(self.attackTimer)
end
return State
end
return Public
I'm using a linter and its complaining that I'm using the colon unnecessarily for my update and exit methods. The reason I do this is to keep all my methods uniform. Sometimes I need self and sometimes I don't.
But in general is there any advantage to using colon on these at all? It seems like if i have something like State:start then I could just reference State directly. I could do State.attackTimer vs self.attackTimer..
Why would you ever really need the colon? If you have access to the table that holds the method then you have access to self.. right?
The : syntax is a great tool when you are making a class using a table and a metatable.
Your code above, rather then creating a class, creates an encapsulated set of functions. which have access to State as an upvalue.
I will use this class from Lua Users - SimpleLuaClasses as an example:
Account = {}
Account.__index = Account
function Account:create(balance)
local acnt = {} -- our new object
setmetatable(acnt,Account) -- make Account handle lookup
acnt.balance = balance -- initialize our object
return acnt
end
function Account:withdraw(amount)
self.balance = self.balance - amount
end
-- create and use an Account
acc = Account:create(1000)
acc:withdraw(100)
Here we have an instance(acc) of the Account class. To adjust or modify the values in this specific instance of Account we can not refer to Account.balance inside of Account:withdraw. We need a reference to the table where the data is stored, and that is where passing that table using : comes in.
acc:withdraw(100) is just syntactic sugar for acc.withdraw(acc, 100) passing in our table as the first param self. When you define Account:withdraw(amount) there is an implicate first variable self the definition could be written as Account.withdraw(self, amount)
I have a pretty mind-bending setup right now. I have a regular function that returns a table with functions in it under keys "string" and "number":
function defGeneric()
local function funcNumber(a)
return 2*a^2
end
local function funcString(a)
return a.." - test"
end
local returnTable={}
returnTable["number"]=funcNumber
returnTable["string"]=funcString
return returnTable
end
And that works fine. But what I want to do now is make the table that this function returns callable. To illustrate, let's say we have v=defGeneric(). Specifically:
If v is called with a string str, return the result of v["string"](str)
If v is called with a number n, return the result of v["number"](n)
This is obviously a job for metatables, so I can (in my function) add the code to set a metatable:
local metaTable = {
__call = function (...) -- "call" event handler
return
end
}
setmetatable(returnTable,metaTable)
But I don't know what I would put after that return statement. I don't think I can reference returnTable, because this table will be called like so:
v=defGeneric()
v("test")
And I need to reference v's "string" function (there certainly could be multiple defGeneric() tables in one program).
I think the answer here might be some self trick but I can't wrap my head around how. How do I reference a metatable's table from the metatable?
The first argument passed to the __call function is the table it is being called on, the table returned from the function in this case. You can use type(a) to get the type of the argument as a string, so you could do something like this:
function defGeneric()
local result = {
['number'] = function(a) return 2*a^2 end,
['string'] = function(a) return a.." - test" end
}
setmetatable(result, {
__call = function(t,a)
local f = t[type(a)]
if f == nil then return "No handler for type "..type(a) end
-- alternate:
-- if f == nil and t['string'] ~= nil then return t['string'](tostring(a)) end
return f(a)
end
})
return result
end
local def = defGeneric()
print("string: "..tostring(def('sample string')))
print("number: "..tostring(def(5)))
print("table: "..tostring(def({})))
print("boolean: "..tostring(def(1 > 5)))
output
string: sample string - test
number: 50.0
table: No handler for type table
boolean: No handler for type boolean
alternate output
string: sample string - test
number: 50.0
table: table: 0x18537e0 - test
boolean: false - test
I have the following Class
local PROGRESS = {}
PROGRESS.__index = function(self,key)
if key~="__group" and self.__group[key] then
return self.__group[key]
else
return rawget(self,key)
end
end
What this does is when You access table[key] it performs a lookup in table.__group (which is an object of another class) and returns table.__group[key] ,if it is not nil.
Now I am trying to do the same for member functions.
i.e If I call table:key() a lookup must be performed in table.__group and if the function is present, then table.__group:key() should be called.
How do I accomplish this?
I tried to do this.
local PROGRESS = {}
PROGRESS.__index = function(self,key)
if key~="__group" and self.__group[key] then
local val = self.__group[key]
if type(val) == "function" then
self.__group:val()
return function() end
end
return self.__group[key]
else
return rawget(self,key)
end
end
But there are 2 things wrong here.
I am unable to retrieve the original function's arguments
Event if I just ACCESS table[key].function without calling it, the function will be called
And I've got the feeling that I am trying to complicate things and the solution is way simpler.
Any help is appreciated.
UPDATE
#Mud
The problem with the original code is that the object passed as 'self' to the member function is an object of the new class. Not of the old class.
Consider this code
GROUP_CLASS = {}
GROUP_CLASS.__index = GROUP_CLASS
function GROUP_CLASS:showSum (a,b) print(self);print(a + b) end
group_object = setmetatable({},GROUP_CLASS)
group_object:showSum(1,2)
local PROGRESS_CLASS = {}
PROGRESS_CLASS.__index = function(self,key,value)
if key~="__group" and self.__group[key] then
return self.__group[key]
else
return rawget(self,key)
end
end
progress_object = setmetatable( {__group = group_object} , PROGRESS_CLASS)
progress_object:showSum(3,3)
--progress_object is passed as first argument to showSum. But i need group_object to be passed
In the above code, When progress_object:showSum(3,3) is called,
is it possible to pass group_object (or in other words progress_object.__group) as self instead of progress_object.
Hope that makes sense.
Response to updated post:
progress_object is passed as first argument to showSum. But i need group_object to be passed
If you're going to ignore the state of the object a method is called on, and substitute the state of some other object, why is it even a method on that object? That's like overriding the addition operator to do multiplication, a recipe for confusion.
In other words, you want this:
progress_object:method("foo")
To resolve, via bizarre internal machinery, into this:
group_object:method("foo")
Why not skip a step and just make the latter call?
If you must, you could achieve this by returning a proxy for the method which replaces self with __group
local PROGRESS_CLASS = {}
PROGRESS_CLASS.__index = function(self,key)
local groupval = self.__group[key]
if key == '__group' or not groupval then
return rawget(self,key)
elseif type(groupval) ~= 'function' then
return groupval
else
return function(...)
if self == ... then -- method call
-- replace self argument with __group
return groupval(self.__group,select(2,...))
else
return groupval(...)
end
end
end
end
Response to original post:
How I am trying to do the same for member functions. i.e If I call table:key() a lookup must be performed in table.__group and if the function is present, then table.__group:key() should be called.
How do I accomplish this?
Do nothing. Your original code handles this.
Lua doesn't know what a "member function" is. A member is a member (i.e. an element in a table), and whether the value of that member is a function is irrelevant.
Remember:
obj:method(a,b,c) is exactly equivalent to obj.method(obj,a,b,c)
obj.method is exactly equivalent to obj["method"].
Your code already resolves obj["method"] into obj.__group["method"]
So you're done.
For instance, say we have:
group = {}
function group:showSum (a,b) print(a + b) end
function group:showProduct(a,b) print(a * b) end
Using your first code, we can write:
foo = setmetatable({__group = group}, PROGRESS)
foo:showSum(3,3) -- 6
foo:showProduct(3,3) -- 9
That's it.
Now, as long as we're here, let's look at what your second function is doing:
local val = self.__group[key]
if type(val) == "function" then
self.__group:val()
return function() end
end
First you grab the function value from __group. At this point you're done. Simply return that value, and the caller is going to call that value (i.e. (...)). Instead, you call __group["val"] which is likely a totally different function from __group[key] (unless key=="val"), then you pass the caller a function which does nothing.
I need to build an array of objects of class ID using arrayfun:
% ID.m
classdef ID < handle
properties
id
end
methods
function obj = ID(id)
obj.id = id;
end
end
end
But get an error:
>> ids = 1:5;
>> s = arrayfun(#(id) ID(id), ids)
??? Error using ==> arrayfun
ID output type is not currently implemented.
I can build it alternatively in a loop:
s = [];
for k = 1 : length(ids)
s = cat(1, s, ID(ids(k)));
end
but what is wrong with this usage of arrayfun?
Edit (clarification of the question): The question is not how to workaround the problem (there are several solutions), but why the simple syntax s = arrayfun(#(id) ID(id), ids); doesn't work. Thanks.
Perhaps the easiest is to use cellfun, or force arrayfun to return a cell array by setting the 'UniformOutput' option. Then you can convert this cell array to an array of obects (same as using cat above).
s = arrayfun(#(x) ID(x), ids, 'UniformOutput', false);
s = [s{:}];
You are asking arrayfun to do something it isn't built to do.
The output from arrayfun must be:
scalar values (numeric, logical, character, or structure) or cell
arrays.
Objects don't count as any of the scalar types, which is why the "workarounds" all involve using a cell array as the output. One thing to try is using cell2mat to convert the output to your desired form; it can be done in one line. (I haven't tested it though.)
s = cell2mat(arrayfun(#(id) ID(id), ids,'UniformOutput',false));
This is how I would create an array of objects:
s = ID.empty(0,5);
for i=5:-1:1
s(i) = ID(i);
end
It is always a good idea to provide a "default constructor" with no arguments, or at least use default values:
classdef ID < handle
properties
id
end
methods
function obj = ID(id)
if nargin<1, id = 0; end
obj.id = id;
end
end
end