I have a script written in Lua 5.1 that imports third-party module and calls some functions from it. I would like to get a list of function calls from a module with their arguments (when they are known before execution).
So, I need to write another script which takes the source code of my first script, parses it, and extracts information from its code.
Consider the minimal example.
I have the following module:
local mod = {}
function mod.foo(a, ...)
print(a, ...)
end
return mod
And the following driver code:
local M = require "mod"
M.foo('a', 1)
M.foo('b')
What is the better way to retrieve the data with the "use" occurrences of the M.foo function?
Ideally, I would like to get the information with the name of the function being called and the values of its arguments. From the example code above, it would be enough to get the mapping like this: {'foo': [('a', 1), ('b')]}.
I'm not sure if Lua has functions for reflection to retrieve this information. So probably I'll need to use one of the existing parsers for Lua to get the complete AST and find the function calls I'm interested in.
Any other suggestions?
If you can not modify the files, you can read the files into a strings then parse mod file and find all functions in it, then use that information to parse the target file for all uses of the mod library
functions = {}
for func in modFile:gmatch("function mod%.(%w+)") do
functions[func] = {}
end
for func, call in targetFile:gmatch("M%.(%w+)%(([^%)]+)%)") do
args = {}
for arg in string.gmatch(call, "([^,]+)") do
table.insert(args, arg)
end
table.insert(functions[func], args)
end
Resulting table can then be serialized
['foo'] = {{"'a'", " 1"}, {"'b'"}}
3 possible gotchas:
M is not a very unique name and could vary possibly match unintended function calls to another library.
This example does not handle if there is a function call made inside the arg list. e.g. myfunc(getStuff(), true)
The resulting table does not know the typing of the args so they are all save as strings representations.
If modifying the target file is an option you can create a wrapper around your required module
function log(mod)
local calls = {}
local wrapper = {
__index = function(_, k)
if mod[k] then
return function(...)
calls[k] = calls[k] or {}
table.insert(calls[k], {...})
return mod[k](...)
end
end
end,
}
return setmetatable({},wrapper), calls
end
then you use this function like so.
local M, calls = log(require("mod"))
M.foo('a', 1)
M.foo('b')
If your module is not just functions you would need to handle that in the wrapper, this wrapper assumes all indexes are a function.
after all your calls you can serialize the calls table to get the history of all the calls made. For the example code the table looks like
{
['foo'] = {{'a', 1}, {'b'}}
}
Related
Some of the parameters to a simulation I am writing are functions. When the output is generated, I want to put the definition of these functional parameters in the output. I have in mind a macro that somehow saves the definition as a string, and then defines it. For example, here's what I do now:
borda_score_fn(p) = exp(1/p)
global g_borda_score_fn_string = "exp(1/p)"
And then I write g_borda_score_fn_string to my output. But this is really ugly!
What I would like to do is something like this:
#paramfn borda_score_fn(p) = exp(1/p)
And later be able to both call borda_score_fn(p), and have the form (i.e., "exp(1/p)") available for writing to my output log. (The string form might get stashed in a global dict, actually, they both could.)
I have tried many version of this, but can't get the right set of parses and calls to get it to work. Any help would be appreciated.
This may be a bit different than what you have in mind, but one perhaps "Julian" approach might be to have the function itself return the form string via multiple dispatch, rather than defining a whole new global variable just for that. For example, say we have a type
struct Form end
that we can use for dispatch, then we can write
borda_score_fn(p) = exp(1/p)
borda_score_fn(::Form) = "exp(1/p)"
which can then be retrieved just by calling the function with our type
julia> borda_score_fn(2)
1.6487212707001282
julia> borda_score_fn(Form())
"exp(1/p)"
That might actually be not bad on its own. But, if you want a macro to do both parts at once, then something along the lines of
macro paramfn(e)
name = esc(e.args[1].args[1])
str = string(e.args[2].args[2])
f = esc(e)
quote
$name(::Form) = $str
$f
end
end
would let you write
julia> #paramfn borda_score_fn(p) = exp(1/p)
borda_score_fn (generic function with 2 methods)
julia> borda_score_fn(1)
2.718281828459045
julia> borda_score_fn(Form())
"exp(1 / p)"
For completeness, here's how you can do it in a way more similar to your original approach, but more idiomatically than with a global variable:
julia> module FormOf
export formof, #paramfn
function formof end
macro paramfn(expr)
name = esc(expr.args[1].args[1])
form_str = string(expr.args[2].args[2])
quote
$(esc(expr))
$FormOf.formof(::typeof($name)) = $form_str
$name
end
end
end
Main.FormOf
julia> FormOf.#paramfn borda_score_fn(p) = exp(1/p)
borda_score_fn (generic function with 1 method)
julia> FormOf.formof(borda_score_fn)
"exp(1 / p)"
However, since it defines a new method of FormOf.formof, this only works in global scope:
julia> function bla()
FormOf.#paramfn fn(p) = exp(1/p)
fn(10) + 1
end
ERROR: syntax: Global method definition around REPL[45]:10 needs to be placed at the top level, or use "eval".
Stacktrace:
[1] top-level scope
# REPL[50]:1
#cbk's solution does not have this limitation.
When I run the following code, I get a deprecation saying produce has been replace with channels.
function source(dir)
filelist = readdir(dir)
for filename in filelist
name,ext = splitext(filename)
if ext == ".jld"
produce(filename)
end
end
end
path = "somepathdirectoryhere"
for fname in Task(source(path))
println(fname)
end
I cannot find an example on how to do this with channels. I've tried creating a global channel and using put! instead of produce with no luck.
Any ideas?
Here's one way. Modify your function to accept a channel argument, and put! data in it:
function source(dir, chnl)
filelist = readdir(dir)
for filename in filelist
name, ext = splitext(filename)
if ext == ".jld"
put!(chnl, filename) % this blocks until "take!" is used elsewhere
end
end
end
Then create your task implicitly using the Channel constructor (which takes a function with a single argument only representing the channel, so we need to wrap the source function around an anonymous function):
my_channel = Channel( (channel_arg) -> source( pwd(), channel_arg) )
Then, either check the channel is still open (i.e. task hasn't finished) and if so take an argument:
julia> while isopen( my_channel)
take!( my_channel) |> println;
end
no.jld
yes.jld
or, use the channel itself as an iterator (iterating over Tasks is becoming deprecated, along with the produce / consume functionality)
julia> for i in my_channel
i |> println
end
no.jld
yes.jld
Alternatively you can use #schedule with bind etc as per the documentation, but it seems like the above is the most straightforward way.
I have a question on Java 8 Functional Programming. I am trying to achieve something using functional programming, and need some guidance on how to do it.
My requirement is to wrap every method execution inside timer function which times the method execution. Here's the example of timer function and 2 functions I need to time.
timerMethod(String timerName, Function func){
timer.start(timerName)
func.apply()
timer.stop()
}
functionA(String arg1, String arg2)
functionB(int arg1, intArg2, String ...arg3)
I am trying to pass functionA & functionB to timerMethod, but functionA & functionB expects different number & type of arguments for execution.
Any ideas how can I achieve it.
Thanks !!
you should separate it into two things by Separation of Concerns to make your code easy to use and maintaining. one is timing, another is invoking, for example:
// v--- invoking occurs in request-time
R1 result1 = timerMethod("functionA", () -> functionA("foo", "bar"));
R2 result2 = timerMethod("functionB", () -> functionB(1, 2, "foo", "bar"));
// the timerMethod only calculate the timing-cost
<T> T timerMethod(String timerName, Supplier<T> func) {
timer.start(timerName);
try {
return func.get();
} finally {
timer.stop();
}
}
IF you want to return a functional interface rather than the result of that method, you can done it as below:
Supplier<R1> timingFunctionA =timerMethod("A", ()-> functionA("foo", "bar"));
Supplier<R2> timingFunctionB =timerMethod("B", ()-> functionB(1, 2, "foo", "bar"));
<T> Supplier<T> timerMethod(String timerName, Supplier<T> func) {
// v--- calculate the timing-cost when the wrapper function is invoked
return () -> {
timer.start(timerName);
try {
return func.get();
} finally {
timer.stop();
}
};
}
Notes
IF the return type of all of your functions is void, you can replacing Supplier with Runnable and then make the timerMethod's return type to void & remove return keyword from timerMethod.
IF some of your functions will be throws a checked exception, you can replacing Supplier with Callable & invoke Callable#call instead.
Don't hold onto the arguments and then pass them at the last moment. Pass them immediately, but delay calling the function by wrapping it with another function:
Producer<?> f1 =
() -> functionA(arg1, arg2);
Producer<?> f2 =
() -> functionB(arg1, arg2, arg3);
Here, I'm wrapping each function call in a lambda (() ->...) that takes 0 arguments. Then, just call them later with no arguments:
f1()
f2()
This forms a closure over the arguments that you supplied in the lambda, which allows you to use the variables later, even though normally they would have been GC'd for going out of scope.
Note, I have a ? as the type of the Producer since I don't know what type your functions return. Change the ? to the return type of each function.
Introduction
The other answers show how to use a closure to capture the arguments of your function, no matter its number. This is a nice approach and it's very useful, if you know the arguments in advance, so that they can be captured.
Here I'd like to show two other approaches that don't require you to know the arguments in advance...
If you think it in an abstract way, there are no such things as functions with multiple arguments. Functions either receive one set of values (aka a tuple), or they receive one single argument and return another function that receives another single argument, which in turn returns another one-argument function that returns... etc, with the last function of the sequence returning an actual result (aka currying).
Methods in Java might have multiple arguments, though. So the challenge is to build functions that always receive one single argument (either by means of tuples or currying), but that actually invoke methods that receive multiple arguments.
Approach #1: Tuples
So the first approach is to use a Tuple helper class and have your function receive one tuple, either a Tuple2 or Tuple3:
So, the functionA of your example might receive one single Tuple2<String, String> as an argument:
Function<Tuple2<String, String>, SomeReturnType> functionA = tuple ->
functionA(tuple.getFirst(), tuple.getSecond());
And you could invoke it as follows:
SomeReturnType resultA = functionA.apply(Tuple2.of("a", "b"));
Now, in order to decorate the functionA with your timerMethod method, you'd need to do a few modifications:
static <T, R> Function<T, R> timerMethod(
String timerName,
Function<? super T, ? extends R> func){
return t -> {
timer.start(timerName);
R result = func.apply(t);
timer.stop();
return result;
};
}
Please note that you should use a try/finally block to make your code more robust, as shown in holi-java's answer.
Here's how you might use your timerMethod method for functionA:
Function<Tuple2<String, String>, SomeReturnType> timedFunctionA = timerMethod(
"timerA",
tuple -> functionA(tuple.getFirst(), tuple.getSecond());
And you can invoke timedFunctionA as any other function, passing it the arguments now, at invocation time:
SomeReturnType resultA = timedFunctionA.apply(Tuple2.of("a", "b"));
You can take a similar approach with the functionB of your example, except that you'd need to use a Tuple3<Integer, Integer, String[]> for the argument (taking care of the varargs arguments).
The downside of this approach is that you need to create many Tuple classes, i.e. Tuple2, Tuple3, Tuple4, etc, because Java lacks built-in support for tuples.
Approach #2: Currying
The other approach is to use a technique called currying, i.e. functions that accept one single argument and return another function that accepts another single argument, etc, with the last function of the sequence returning the actual result.
Here's how to create a currified function for your 2-argument method functionA:
Function<String, Function<String, SomeReturnType>> currifiedFunctionA =
arg1 -> arg2 -> functionA(arg1, arg2);
Invoke it as follows:
SomeReturnType result = currifiedFunctionA.apply("a").apply("b");
If you want to decorate currifiedFunctionA with the timerMethod method defined above, you can do as follows:
Function<String, Function<String, SomeReturnType>> timedCurrifiedFunctionA =
arg1 -> timerMethod("timerCurryA", arg2 -> functionA(arg1, arg2));
Then, invoke timedCurrifiedFunctionA exactly as you'd do with any currified function:
SomeReturnType result = timedCurrifiedFunctionA.apply("a").apply("b");
Please note that you only need to decorate the last function of the sequence, i.e. the one that makes the actual call to the method, which is what we want to measure.
For the method functionB of your example, you can take a similar approach, except that the type of the currified function would now be:
Function<Integer, Function<Integer, Function<String[], SomeResultType>>>
which is quite cumbersome, to say the least. So this is the downside of currified functions in Java: the syntax to express their type. On the other hand, currified functions are very handy to work with and allow you to apply several functional programming techniques without needing to write helper classes.
Does using a function declared outside the scope of the function it is being used in violate a Functional principle like immutability? Or is that referring specifically to data like arrays, strings, etc.
For example:
var data ["cat", "dog", "bird"];
function doThing (val) {
return val + ", go away!"
}
function alterData (data) {
return data.map(doThing);
}
alterData(data);
Would the above code be acceptable? or would the "doThing" function need to be passed into the alterData function as an argument?
The reason I am confused is because in Functional Programming examples I often see functions native to the language being used without being first passed to the function. However, the examples are never complicated enough to show how one would work with a library of functions.
Regards
Functional programming is no different from procedural in that regard—you write definitions that you can reuse anywhere that they are in scope. You control what's in scope where with a variety of mechanisms, for example with module definitions, module export lists and module imports. So for example (in Haskell):
module My.Module
-- List of definitions exported from this module
( doThing
, alterData
) where
-- Any definitions exported from `My.Other.Module` will be in scope
-- in this one
import My.Other.Module
-- Can't name this `data` because it's a reserved word in Haskell
yourData :: [String]
yourData = ["cat", "dog", "bird"]
doThing :: String -> String
doThing val = val ++ ", go away!"
alterData :: [String] -> [String]
alterData strings = map doThings strings
TL;DR
It's fine to rely on scoping in FP code.
Immutability means that something represented by a name can't change its value. I wouldn't call it a "principle" of functional programming, though.
Anyway, this is not related to scoping at all. Passing things as arguments makes sense if you want to parametrize a function over another function - essentially making it a Higher-Order function. A good example of such is fold (also known as reduce) - but map is also one.
In your case alterData function isn't adding much value, though. mapping something over something is so common, that it's typically better to provide only the one-element function, as it's fundamentally more reusable.
If you've passed doThing to alterData, you'd make that function essentially useless; why would I use it, if I could simply use map? However, packing the operation together with the mapping can sometimes be an useful abstraction.
It is fine have doThing the way it is.
You need to do this :
var data = ["cat", "dog", "bird"];
var doThing = function (val) {
return val + ", go away!"
}
function alterData (data) {
return data.map(doThing);
}
alterData(data);
Is there an R function that lists all the functions in an R script file along with their arguments?
i.e. an output of the form:
func1(var1, var2)
func2(var4, var10)
.
.
.
func10(varA, varB)
Using [sys.]source has the very undesirable side-effect of executing the source inside the file. At the worst this has security problems, but even “benign” code may simply have unintended side-effects when executed. At best it just takes unnecessary time (and potentially a lot).
It’s actually unnecessary to execute the code, though: it is enough to parse it, and then do some syntactical analysis.
The actual code is trivial:
file_parsed = parse(filename)
functions = Filter(is_function, file_parsed)
function_names = unlist(Map(function_name, functions))
And there you go, function_names contains a vector of function names. Extending this to also list the function arguments is left as an exercise to the reader. Hint: there are two approaches. One is to eval the function definition (now that we know it’s a function definition, this is safe); the other is to “cheat” and just get the list of arguments to the function call.
The implementation of the functions used above is also not particularly hard. There’s probably even something already in R core packages (‘utils’ has a lot of stuff) but since I’m not very familiar with this, I’ve just written them myself:
is_function = function (expr) {
if (! is_assign(expr)) return(FALSE)
value = expr[[3L]]
is.call(value) && as.character(value[[1L]]) == 'function'
}
function_name = function (expr) {
as.character(expr[[2L]])
}
is_assign = function (expr) {
is.call(expr) && as.character(expr[[1L]]) %in% c('=', '<-', 'assign')
}
This correctly recognises function declarations of the forms
f = function (…) …
f <- function (…) …
assign('f', function (…) …)
It won’t work for more complex code, since assignments can be arbitrarily complex and in general are only resolvable by actually executing the code. However, the three forms above probably account for ≫ 99% of all named function definitions in practice.
UPDATE: Please refer to the answer by #Konrad Rudolph instead
You can create a new environment, source your file in that environment and then list the functions in it using lsf.str() e.g.
test.env <- new.env()
sys.source("myfile.R", envir = test.env)
lsf.str(envir=test.env)
rm(test.env)
or if you want to wrap it as a function:
listFunctions <- function(filename) {
temp.env <- new.env()
sys.source(filename, envir = temp.env)
functions <- lsf.str(envir=temp.env)
rm(temp.env)
return(functions)
}