I have made a procedure in Praat script which looks like this:
procedure segment_allowed: .segment$
appendInfoLine: "The argument I got was: ", .segment$
.yes = 0
for i from 1 to allowed_segments_size
if allowed_segments$[i] = .segment$
.yes = 1
endif
endfor
endproc
It's basically trying to find out if .segment$ exists in a global array allowed_segments$.
The function when called like this:
call segment_allowed segment_label$
always outputs:
The argument I got was segment_label$
Why is the function/procedure not picking up the actual value and treating the variable like a string?
You are mixing the old syntax (the "shorthand") and the new syntax, and that's confusing things.
When you write call segment_allowed segment_label$, you are using the "shorthand", and in that (deprecated) syntax style variables are not automatically interpolated. If you want to use that style, you should write
call segment_allowed 'segment_label$'
to force interpolation.
A much better way to do it is to use the new syntax (which you are using in your procedure definition), which does a much more sensible variable interpolation. Using this new syntax (available from about version 5.4), your procedure call should be
#segment_allowed: segment_label$
which should do what you want.
As an aside, translating your current procedure call into this new syntax, which is easier to understand, what you were calling was
#segment_allowed: "segment_label$"
Also note that from 1 in for loops is redundant, since that is the default. And if what you are interested is just knowing whether the segment is there or not, you could break from the loop when a match has been found, like this (I also changed your i for .i, to keep things tidy):
procedure segment_allowed: .segment$
appendInfoLine: "The argument I got was: ", .segment$
.yes = 0
for .i to allowed_segments_size
if allowed_segments$[.i] = .segment$
.yes = 1
.i += allowed_segments_size
endif
endfor
endproc
Related
Is there a way to use a for loop to automate a function? e.g
if i write..
def foo (a number):
return (a number)
for i in range(10):
print(foo('1{}').format(str(i))
Comes out with AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'format'
Well, I am changing this because it didn't really answer your question, but its a lot simpler than you are trying to make it. Really all it is, is a function that is called and updated by a loop. So, let's try that:
def foo(num):
print(num)
num = 0
for i in range(1,10,1):
foo(num + i)
So, what I've done here is taken your script and changed it. To start with, "a number" as a parameter will cause syntax errors while trying to define them. So I changed it to "num".
Then, I've used a simple print statement to print out the number that is coming in. This could be removed if you just wanted a loop with it cycling it through numbers. And of course changing "foo(num + i)" to "print(num + i)".
The "num = 0" sets a variable so we can use it later.
Regards,
Jerry
I'm trying to figure out a way to get all functions in a Lua script. This script has been compiled into a function through loadfile. For example, I'd want to get every function defined in the script below.
function example1()
end
local function example2()
end
local library = {}
function library:example3()
end
(function()
-- Functions like this too.
end)
The names aren't important, I'm just looking for a way to get the actual functions so I can use them in debug.getinfo and get information like the lines they were defined in. I have LuaJIT, if that makes this any easier. Is something like this even possible? Thanks in advance.
I guess the file declares its functions as global, or it would be really easy to track what is returned.
If that's the case, you can cycle through all the global items with a generic for loop, and only take the functions from them:
allFuncs = {}
for key, item in pairs(_G) do
if type(item) == "function" then
allFuncs[#allFuncs + 1] = item
end
end
(_G is the table holding all the global variables)
Then you will have a list (allFuncs) holding all the functions declared, but be aware that it will also contain default functions like setmetatable or xpcall.
It's easy to modify the code to not make this happen, but only use this for testing / learning:
function allFuncs()
local funcsTab = {}
for key, item in pairs(_G) do
if type(item) == "function" then
funcsTab[#funcsTab + 1] = item
end
end
return funcsTab
end
defaultFuncs = allFuncs()
--then you load your file: other functions get declared
--we create another table containg the default + the new functions
myFuncs = allFuncs()
--then you subtract the first table from the second
for i = 1, #myFuncs do
for o = 1, #defaultFuncs do
if myFuncs[i] == defaultFuncs[o] then
table.remove(myFuncs, i)
end
end
end
This is if your file doesn't return anything and declares its functions as globals.
If the file declares them as local and then returns a table containing them, just use the first piece of code replacing _G with that returned table.
This is not likely to be possible without syntax or bytecode analysis as each function definition is an assignment (just has different forms in your examples). See the bytecode inspector and a related discussion here. For the syntax analysis you can use metalua or something like lua-loose-parser. Keep in mind that even those tools won't give you the entire list of functions as some functions may be defined dynamically using loadstring (or similar methods).
If you only have access to the result of loadfile, then you best bet is to use the bytecode analyzer.
This is possible using jit.attach in LuaJIT.
You can attach callbacks to a number of compiler events with
jit.attach. The callback can be called:
when a function has been compiled to bytecode ("bc");
when trace recording starts or stops ("trace");
as a trace is being recorded ("record");
or when a trace exits through a side exit ("texit").
http://wiki.luajit.org/JIT-Compiler-API#jit-attach
jit.attach(function(f)
local funcInfo = jit.util.funcinfo(f)
end, "bc")
I have a namespace variable which is defined as below:
namespace eval ::SMB::{
variable SmbInfo
------
------
proc ::SMB::SmbCreate {name dutport} {
variable SmbInfo
global DutPorts DutPort_2 DutPorts_3 smb
------
------
if{"" != [info command SMB::$name]} {
return -code error "command name \"$name\" already exists"
}
set SmbInfo($name -DutPort) $dutport
I am new to Tcl and trying to understand the above piece of code. Few questions, please correct me if I am wrong at any point:
The variable SmbInfo defined on top in namespace is getting overridden by the one declared in the procedure SmbCreate. I am unable to figure out what is the objective of the line:
set SmbInfo($name -DutPort) $dutport
I can see that 'DutPorts' is defined as global but I could not find 'DutPort'. I have not executed the code yet. Could it be an error?
Is ($name - DutPort) creating an array index for the variable SmbInfo and the value of $dutport is being set to that particular array variable?
I have similar code structures in the file like below
set SmbInfo($name - SmbSetDmac) [BuildMac1 $SmbInfo($from_name-DutPort)]
Where BuildMac1 is a procedure. A bit explanation of the above code might also make the thing clear.
If anything I missed to post in the question, kindly point me, I will edit my question.
Thanks in advance.
The second declaration doesn't override, it's the same variable in both cases.
The command is a syntax error because of the space after $name. The intent seems to be to assign the value of $dutport to the member of SmbInfo that has the name "$name -DutPort" (where $name is replaced by the variable value).
A similar assignment, but here the value comes from the result of the command.
There are a few syntax errors in the code, too many or too few spaces here and there. It seems unlikely this code has ever been executed.
The purpose of the smb::SmbCreate command would seem to be to 1) create a new command in the SMB namespace named by the first parameter (unless such a command already exists) and 2) store metadata in the SmbInfo namespace variable, indexed by a) the name parameter and b) a keyword such as -DutPort or -SmbSetDmac.
Code like this essentially implements an ad-hoc object-oriented interface. If the whitespace issues are resolved, it should work fine.
You have many syntactic problems that are going to cause you much grief. Tcl cares very much about its syntax level, which includes exactly where the spaces and newlines are, and whether there are {braces} and [brackets] as expected. You must get these things right.
Looking at the specific code you're having problems with, this line:
set SmbInfo($name -DutPort) $dutport
would appear to be highly unlikely, as it is passing three arguments to the set command when that only takes one or two. I'd guess that you've got a command that you're calling to obtain a key for an array, and that the code therefore ought to be this:
set SmbInfo([$name -DutPort]) $dutport
See those [brackets]? They matter here, as they say “run my contents as a little subscript and use the result”. With that sorted out, there's also the question of whether $name -DutPort works at all, but you'll just have to be guided by the error messages there. Tcl usually gives very good error messages, though sometimes you have to think about why the code got in the state where it is giving that message in order to figure out what the actual problem is. You know, usual debugging…
I would expect similar problems with:
set SmbInfo($name - SmbSetDmac) [BuildMac1 $SmbInfo($from_name-DutPort)]
and would guess that it is actually supposed to be:
set SmbInfo([$name -SmbSetDmac]) [BuildMac1 $SmbInfo([$from_name -DutPort])]
Note again that I have modified the spaces to follow the existing pattern (which I'm guessing is a property access; it looks like it's OTcl or XOTcl) and added brackets.
Finally, this line:
if{"" != [info command SMB::$name]} {
is also syntactically wrong, and should instead be:
if {"" != [info command SMB::$name]} {
That extra space matters, because it separates the word that is the command name (if) from the word that is the condition expression. The remainder of the line is probably correct (the SMB::$name might be suspicious, except you're using it in info command, but then you probably only need info command $name as it already knows about what namespace you're working in and you're using the unqualified name elsewhere).
So I'm just starting to learn Eiffel. One of the first exercises in the book I'm using says to make a function that does base^exp without using ^. I've copied my code below.
class
APPLICATION
inherit
ARGUMENTS
create
make
feature {NONE} -- Initialization
make
-- Run application.
do
create power(2;3)
printf("2 to the power of 3 is " + answer)
end
power(base : REAL; exp : INTEGER) : REAL
-- computers base raised to the bower of exp without using ^
local
remain : INTEGER
do
remain := exp
if remain = 0 then
result := 1
else
from
until
remain = 0
loop
result := result * result
remain := remain -1
end
end
end
end
How do I use this? Do I need it on the same level as feature{NONE}'s make? I know how I'm calling it is wrong, and I can't find anything in the chapter I just read, or online on how to pass parameters into it or how to use it's results.
There are several issues with the original code:
create is used to create an object, but you are not going to create anything, but to get a result of a computation of the function power by calling it. Therefore the keyword create is not needed.
You are using an entity answer to report the result of evaluation on a screen. However it is not declared anywhere. I believe the proper place would be a local variable declaration section.
The entity answer is not initialized to the result of the function power. This is usually done by an assignment instruction.
Feature arguments are separated by a comma, not by a semicolon.
From the original code it's unclear what is the type of the variable answer. Assuming it matches the type of the function power, before adding it to a string, it needs to be converted to a string. This is done by calling the feature out.
The standard feature for printing a string to a console is print, not printf.
Combining the critical points above, we get
make
-- Run application.
local
answer: REAL
do
answer := power(2, 3)
print ("2 to the power of 3 is " + answer.out)
end
After that the code can be compiled. Now less critical points:
It is a good style to put features to a dedicated feature clauses, so I would add a line like feature -- Basic operations before the feature power.
The implementation of the feature power has at least two problems. I'm not going to detail them here, but would give two hints instead:
by default numeric Result is initialized to 0, this needs to be taken into account for operations that use it without first assigning any other value
even though an argument base is passed to the function power it remains unused in the original version of the code
Clearly I have some mixed up, but I figured that by using something like this in "main.lua":
local module = require("module")
local var = "I should be global?"
printthis()
with module.lua containing something like:
function printthis()
print(var)
end
that printthis(var) would work fine, because now the module.lua code is inside main.lua, no? Instead, printthis has no idea what var is. I read it's good practice to use "local" on Lua variables when possible, but in this case, do I have to make var global or is there a way for module.lua's printthis() function to read var properly?
No. That's not at all how it works.
The Lua interpreter provides one global table, referred to as _G normally, unless you're doing something kinky.
function printthis()
print(var)
end
This translates to, in reality
_G.printthis = function()
_G.print(_G.var);
end
And your code in main is equal to
local module = _G.require("module")
local var = "I should be global?"
_G.printthis()
But when you call printthis- where did _G.var get set? Nowhere. So the variable is nil, like all other accesses to a table where there is nothing at that key.
It might be inconvenient, but it's a much better idea in the long run to pass arguments than to set global variables instead. Once you come to change anything about the program, it's going to be completely impossible to make any changes, as the logic has no structure and you have no idea what happens where without reading every single line of code and understanding it at once. In addition, you can only use each key in one place, because it's a global table- so I sure hope nobody else wanted to use "var" as a variable name and you don't mind your code silently failing because you got a global name wrong.
The other two answers gloss over an important thing: lexical scoping.
This means, roughly, that code can access local variables that are defined where the code is defined. That probably sounds vague, so I'll give an example:
local cheese = 'sandwich'
print(cheese) -- prints sandwich
do -- this begins an anonymous block
local cheese = 22
print(cheese) -- prints 22
end
print(cheese) -- prints sandwich
So what we have here is two different variables: the outer one is "shadowed" by the inner one.
Now, onto functions:
do
local hotdog = 'hot'
function nonsense()
print(hotdog)
end
end
print(hotdog) -- prints nil, since there is no variable called hotdog here
nonsense() -- prints hot
Functions can see the local variables from where they are defined, not from where they are called. This is very important and very useful, once you get the hang of it.
I'm no expert in lua, but shouldn't var be passed as variable. Something like this:
function printthis(var)
print(var)
end
You're missing your var in function header. And you're passing your var in main.lua as an argument to printthis() function.