I have std::map which contains list of values associated with a Key. Actual implementation contains many such Keys. Is there a similar way in Lua Table implementation which could hold multiple values for a specific key. If so how to write and read from that table.
I referred the How do I create a Lua Table in C++, and pass it to a Lua function?
I have only access to set and get values which is on my C++ code which was written more generic and cannot create table in C++. (Third party C++ code).
All I have is I can get KeyType, Key, and Value using the
luaState = luaL_newstate();
lua_register(luaState, "getValue", get_value);
lua_register(luaState, "setValue", set_value);.
The C++ code has something like
typedef std::set<const char *> TValueNames;
std::map<const char *, TValueNames> keyValueList;
By referring to Lua document I understood I can create a table with Key as index and assign value as its data. But I need to know how to assign multiple value(data) for one Key.
https://www.lua.org/pil/2.5.html
The example lua script implementation is like,
local keyType = getValue("KeyType");
local Key = getValue("Key");
local Value = getValue("Value");
KeyValueTable = {}
KeyValueTable[Key] = Value;
I need to create something which could hold information like,
["Key1"] = {"Value1,Value2,Value3"};
["Key2"] = {"Value2,Value3,Value4,Value5"};
As you know, a key in a Lua table can only refer to one value, but you can easily make that value a table to hold multiple values. To more faithfully represent the set in the C++ structure, we can make the values into keys in the inner table.
local function setValue(self, key, value)
self[key] = self[key] or {}
self[key][value] = true
end
local function removeValue(self, key, value)
if type(self[key]) == 'table' then
self[key][value] = nil
end
end
local function checkValue(self, key, value)
if type(self[key]) == 'table' then
return self[key][value]
end
end
Related
Bellow is a minimal example when wrapping the OpenAL32.dll. The foreign function alcCreateContext has the argument attrlist which takes a ptr to an array of type ALCint or nil. The issue is the array can be of different lengths depending on the amount of different flags passed in. The array should be organized as [flag, int, flag, int, ...]. How can this be accomplished in a more dynamic way allowing the inclusion of ALC_FREQUENCY for example? The array size is currently hard coded into the procedure and its nasty.
when defined(windows):
{.push cdecl, dynlib: "OpenAL32.dll", importc.}
else:
{.push importc.}
type
ALCint = cint
ALCdevice* = pointer
ALCcontext* = pointer
const
ALC_MONO_SOURCES* = 0x00001010
ALC_STEREO_SOURCES* = 0x00001011
ALC_FREQUENCY* = 0x00001007
proc alcCreateContext*(device: ALCdevice; attrlist: ptr array[0..3, ALCint]): ALCcontext
proc alcOpenDevice*(devicename: cstring): ALCdevice
const attributes = [ALC_MONO_SOURCES.ALCint, 65536.ALCint, ALC_STEREO_SOURCES.ALCint, 65536.ALCint]
discard alcOpenDevice(nil).alcCreateContext(attributes.unsafeAddr)
I experimented with openArray and other containers. Is the solution some sort of cast? This is also the workaround for getting more then 256 sounds out of OpenAL.
Answer from PMunch. Thank You.
The foreign function now wants ptr UncheckedArray[ALCint] and when passing the argument use cast[ptr UncheckedArray[ALCint]](attributes.unsafeAddr)
when defined(windows):
{.push cdecl, dynlib: "OpenAL32.dll", importc.}
else:
{.push importc.}
type
ALCint = cint
ALCdevice* = pointer
ALCcontext* = pointer
const
ALC_MONO_SOURCES* = 0x00001010
ALC_STEREO_SOURCES* = 0x00001011
ALC_FREQUENCY* = 0x00001007
proc alcCreateContext*(device: ALCdevice; attrlist: ptr UncheckedArray[ALCint]): ALCcontext
proc alcOpenDevice*(devicename: cstring): ALCdevice
const attributes = [ALC_MONO_SOURCES.ALCint, 65536.ALCint, ALC_STEREO_SOURCES.ALCint, 65536.ALCint]
discard alcOpenDevice(nil).alcCreateContext(cast[ptr UncheckedArray[ALCint]](attributes.unsafeAddr))
An array in C is simply a pointer to anywhere with one or more contiguous elements of the same type. So to pass a C array to a function you simply need to get such a pointer. Say for example you have a seq of integers then the address of the first element is a C array. Simply do mySeq[0].addr and you're good. Keep the lifecycle of the data in mind though. If Nim doesn't find any more references to the sequence then the memory will get freed. You can also manually get a pointer with create (https://nim-lang.org/docs/system.html#create%2Ctypedesc) and you can cast such pointers to ptr UncheckedArray[T] to be able to use [] on the data in Nim.
Swiftui dictionaries have the feature that the value returned by using key access is always of type "optional". For example, a dictionary that has type String keys and type String values is tricky to access because each returned value is of type optional.
An obvious need is to assign x=myDictionary[key] where you are trying to get the String of the dictionary "value" into the String variable x.
Well this is tricky because the String value is always returned as an Optional String, usually identified as type String?.
So how is it possible to convert the String?-type value returned by the dictionary access into a plain String-type that can be assigned to a plain String-type variable?
I guess the problem is that there is no way to know for sure that there exists a dictionary value for the key. The key used to access the dictionary could be anything so somehow you have to deal with that.
As described in #jnpdx answer to this SO question (How do you assign a String?-type object to a String-type variable?), there are at least three ways to convert a String? to a String:
import SwiftUI
var x: Double? = 6.0
var a = 2.0
if x != nil {
a = x!
}
if let b = x {
a = x!
}
a = x ?? 0.0
Two key concepts:
Check the optional to see if it is nil
if the optional is not equal to nil, then go ahead
In the first method above, "if x != nil" explicitly checks to make sure x is not nil be fore the closure is executed.
In the second method above, "if let a = b" will execute the closure as long as b is not equal to nil.
In the third method above, the "nil-coalescing" operator ?? is employed. If x=nil, then the default value after ?? is assigned to a.
The above code will run in a playground.
Besides the three methods above, there is at least one other method using "guard let" but I am uncertain of the syntax.
I believe that the three above methods also apply to variables other than String? and String.
I have a QHash defined as follows
QHash<QString, QString> hashLookup;
I have inserted a few values to this hash as follows:
hashLookup.insert("OMG", "Oh my God!");
hashLookup.insert("LOL", "Laugh out loud");
hashLookup.insert("RIP", "Rest in peace");
// and so on
I have a few QStrings as follows:
QString a = "OMG_1";
QString b = "LOL_A";
QStirng c = "OMG_YOU";
QString d = "RIP_two";
I am supposed to find if these values exist in hashLookup, i.e, since OMG_1 contains OMG, I should be able to retrieve Oh my God!.
I have tried to do this using
if(hashLookup.contains(a)
//do something
which ofcourse tries to look for a key OMG which is not present in the lookup table and does not return anything. Is partial matching of key values possible in Qt? If yes, how should I go about implementing this.
There is no opportunity in QHash class to extract values by partial matching of key, because QHash use hash function (Qt documentation: qHash) which:
The qHash() function computes a numeric value based on a key. It can
use any algorithm imaginable, as long as it always returns the same
value if given the same argument. In other words, if e1 == e2, then
qHash(e1) == qHash(e2) must hold as well. However, to obtain good
performance, the qHash() function should attempt to return different
hash values for different keys to the largest extent possible.
Different keys give almost always different hash.
In your task you can run on QHash keys and make comparison with QString functionality. Something like this:
QString getHashValue(const QString& strKey, const QHash<QString, QString>& hashLookup)
{
QList<QString> uniqueKeys = hashLookup.uniqueKeys();
foreach(const QString& key, uniqueKeys)
{
if(strKey.contains(key))
return hashLookup.value(key);
}
}
...
getHashValue("OMG_1", hashLookup);
First, in your example the QHash.contains(QString key) method tries to find OMG_1, which in fact it will not find.
You may implement a method which will take a expanded key and tries to locate any subkey of the given value in the hash. Here you have to define some rules I think or it may not return the intendend value.
Think of following example: the hash contains the keys OMG and OM. To match the provided expanded key you implement something like this
bool hashContainsExpanded(const QString &key) const {
if (!hash.contains(key) && key.length() > 1)
return hasContainsExpanded(key.substring(0, key.length() - 1));
return hash.contains(key);
}
This method will let you find the key OMG but not OM which is contained in this key. You may also implement a method which will take the first character of the provided expanded key and test it for containment. If not found, it will take the second and test again and so on. This will match OM in favour of OMG.
Also keep in mind, that you may work later with the matched key and thus you should return it instead of only returning true.
I'm messing around a bit with F# and I'm not quite sure if I'm doing this correctly. In C# this could be done with an IDictionary or something similar.
type School() =
member val Roster = Map.empty with get, set
member this.add(grade: int, studentName: string) =
match this.Roster.ContainsKey(grade) with
| true -> // Can I do something like this.Roster.[grade].Insert([studentName])?
| false -> this.Roster <- this.Roster.Add(grade, [studentName])
Is there a way to insert into the map if it contains a specified key or am I just using the wrong collection in this case?
The F# Map type is a mapping from keys to values just like ordinary .NET Dictionary, except that it is immutable.
If I understand your aim correctly, you're trying to keep a list of students for each grade. The type in that case is a map from integers to lists of names, i.e. Map<int, string list>.
The Add operation on the map actually either adds or replaces an element, so I think that's the operation you want in the false case. In the true case, you need to get the current list, append the new student and then replace the existing record. One way to do this is to write something like:
type School() =
member val Roster = Map.empty with get, set
member this.Add(grade: int, studentName: string) =
// Try to get the current list of students for a given 'grade'
let studentsOpt = this.Roster.TryFind(grade)
// If the result was 'None', then use empty list as the default
let students = defaultArg studentsOpt []
// Create a new list with the new student at the front
let newStudents = studentName::students
// Create & save map with new/replaced mapping for 'grade'
this.Roster <- this.Roster.Add(grade, newStudents)
This is not thread-safe (because calling Add concurrently might not update the map properly). However, you can access school.Roster at any time, iterate over it (or share references to it) safely, because it is an immutable structure. However, if you do not care about that, then using standard Dictionary would be perfectly fine too - depends on your actual use case.
I want to store serialized objects (or whatever) in a key/value cache.
Now I do something like this :
public string getValue(int param1, string param2, etc )
{
string key = param1+"_"+param2+"_"+etc;
string tmp = getFromCache();
if (tmp == null)
{
tmp = getFromAnotherPlace();
addToCache( key, tmp);
}
return tmp;
}
I think it can be awkward. How can I design the key?
if i understood the question, i think the simplest and smartest way to make a key is to use an unidirectional hash function as MD5, SHA1 ecc...
At least two reason for doing this:
The resulting key is unique for sure!(actually both MD5 and SHA1 have been cracked (= )
The resulting key has a fixed lenght!
You have to give your object as argument of the function and you have your unique key.
I don t know very much c# but i am quite sure you can find an unidirectional hash function builted-in.
First of all your key seems to be composed out of a lot of characters. Keep in mind that the key name also occupies memory (1byte / char) so try to keep it as short as possible. I've seen situations where the key name was larger than the value, which can happen if you have cases where you store an empty array or an empty value.
The key structure. I guess from your example that the object you want to store is identified by the params (one being the item id maybe, or maybe filters for a search [...]). Start with a prefix. The prefix should be the name of the object class (or a simplified name depicting the object in general).
Most of the time, keys will have a prefix + identifier. In your example you have multiple identifiers. If one of them is a unique id, go with only prefix + id and it should be enough.
If the object is large and you don't always use all of it then change your strategy to a multiple key storage. Use one main key for storing the most common values, or for storing the components of the object, values of which are stored in separate keys. Make use of pipes and get the whole object in one connection using one "multiple" query :
mainKey = prefix + objectId;
object = getFromCache(mainKey);
startCachePipeline();
foreach (object[properties] as property) {
object->property = getFromCache(prefix + objectId + property);
}
endCachePipeline();
The structure for an example "Person" object would then be something like :
person_33 = array(
properties => array(age, height, weight)
);
person_33_age = 28;
person_33_height = 6;
person_33_weight = 150;
Memcached uses memory most efficient when objects stored inside are of similar sizes. The bigger the size difference between objects (not talking about 1 lost big object or singular cases, although memory gets wasted then as well) the more wasted memory.
Hope it helps!