I would like to know if there is a alternative to using a normal if statement in lua. For example, in java there are switch statements but I cant seem to find that in Lua
Lua lacks a C-style switch statement.
A simple version of a switch statement can be implemented using a table to map the case value to an action. This is very efficient in Lua since tables are hashed by key value which avoids repetitive if then ... elseif ... end statements.
action = {
[1] = function (x) print(1) end,
[2] = function (x) z = 5 end,
["nop"] = function (x) print(math.random()) end,
["my name"] = function (x) print("fred") end,
}
The frequently used pattern
local var; if condition then var = x else var = y end
can be shortened using an and-or "ternary" substitute if x is truthy:
local var = condition and x or y
if test == nil or test == false then return 0xBADEAFFE else return test end
Can be shorten up to...
return test or 0xBADEAFFEE
This works even where you dont can do: if ... then ... else ... end
Like in a function...
print(test or 0xBADEAFFE)
-- Output: 3135156222
...or fallback to a default if an argument is ommited...
function check(test)
local test = test or 0xBADEAFFE
return test
end
print(check())
-- Returns: 3135156222
I need to get the first element from NSMutable dictionary. I tried to get the element using for loop. but I am not getting the correct element because the Dictionary does not follow order. Is there any way I can get the element?
Here is my code:
for (count, i) in myMutableDict.enumerated() {
if count == 2 {
print(i.key)
}
}
As you know dictionary is un ordered collection Type.
let dictionary:Dictionary = ["YYZ": "Toronto Pearson", "DUB": "Dublin"];
for(index,obj) in dictionary.enumerated() {
print("index- \(index) - Object- \(obj)");
print("key- \(obj.key) - value- \(obj.value)");
}
Enumeration will provide you index and Objects of dictionary as above code says. If you want to work with index then you need to get all keys and keep it sorted so that you can get your key by providing index. And from that key you can get value from dictionary object. Piece of code is given below.
var keyList = Array(dictionary.keys);
keyList = keyList.sorted();
print("keyList \(keyList)");
let keyAtIndex = keyList[1];
print("value = \(dictionary[keyAtIndex]!)");
Just wondering does the filter turn the data into tuples? For example
val filesLines = sc.textFile("file.txt")
val split_lines = filesLines.map(_.split(";"))
val filteredData = split_lines.filter(x => x(4)=="Blue")
//from here if we wanted to map the data would it be using tuple format ie. x._3 OR x(3)
val blueRecords = filteredData.map(x => x._1, x._2)
OR
val blueRecords = filteredData.map(x => x(0), x(1))
No, all filter does is take a predicate function and uses it such that any of the datapoints in the set that return a false when passed through that predicate, then they are not passed back out to the resultant set. So, the data remians the same:
filesLines //RDD[String] (lines of the file)
split_lines //RDD[Array[String]] (lines delimited by semicolon)
filteredData //RDD[Array[String]] (lines delimited by semicolon where the 5th item is Blue
So, to use filteredData, you will have to access the data as an array using parentheses with the appropriate index
filter will not change the RDD - filtered data would still be RDD(Array[String])
I have 2 immutable case classes A(source, key, value) and B(source, key, value)
I want to add A over B in such a way when 'source' and 'key' doesn't exist, to be added from A to the B and when 'source' and 'key' exist to replace the value from B with the one from A. The same way 'merge_array' function from php works on a multidimensional array.
I tried with 'A.union(B).groupBy(.key)' and then 'groupBy(.source)' and get the 1st value. But then I realized that I can never be sure that first value will always be the value of A.
I'm quite new to scala and I really ran out of ideas how I could do this from a functional immutable point of view.
Anyone has any idea how I could do this?
Thank you
Edit:
case class TranslationValue(source: String, key: String, value: String)
def main(args:Array[String]):Unit = {
println(merge(data1.toSet, data2.toSet))
}
def merge(a: Set[TranslationValue], b: Set[TranslationValue]) = {
a.union(b).groupBy(_.key).flatMap{ case (s, v) =>
v.groupBy(_.source).flatMap{case (s1, v1) => {
for (res <- 0 to 0) yield v1.head
}
}
}
}
Example
data1 has this data
Set(
TranslationValue(messages,No,No),
TranslationValue(messages,OrdRef,Order Reference),
TranslationValue(messages,OrdId,Order Id)
)
data2 has this data
Set(
TranslationValue(messages,No,No),
TranslationValue(messages,OrdRef,OrderRef)
TranslationValue(messages,Name,Name)
)
putting data1 over data2 I want to obtain
List(
TranslationValue(messages,No,No),
TranslationValue(messages,OrdRef,Order Reference),
TranslationValue(messages,OrdId,Order Id)
TranslationValue(messages,Name,Name)
)
I know that what I do can be done better, but like I said, I'm learning :)
you can group in one go:
def merge(a: Seq[TranslationValue], b: Seq[TranslationValue]) = {
a.union(b).groupBy(t=>(t.key,t.source)).map(c=>c._2.head)
}
i think you could also override the equals method for TranslationValue so that two translation values are equal when source and key are the same(the hashcode method has also to be overridden). Then a.union(b) would be enough.
edit:
It seems Set doesnt guarantee order of items(Scala: Can I rely on the order of items in a Set?), but a seq should.
If I have a list of items like this:
local items = { "apple", "orange", "pear", "banana" }
how do I check if "orange" is in this list?
In Python I could do:
if "orange" in items:
# do something
Is there an equivalent in Lua?
You could use something like a set from Programming in Lua:
function Set (list)
local set = {}
for _, l in ipairs(list) do set[l] = true end
return set
end
Then you could put your list in the Set and test for membership:
local items = Set { "apple", "orange", "pear", "banana" }
if items["orange"] then
-- do something
end
Or you could iterate over the list directly:
local items = { "apple", "orange", "pear", "banana" }
for _,v in pairs(items) do
if v == "orange" then
-- do something
break
end
end
Use the following representation instead:
local items = { apple=true, orange=true, pear=true, banana=true }
if items.apple then
...
end
You're seeing firsthand one of the cons of Lua having only one data structure---you have to roll your own. If you stick with Lua you will gradually accumulate a library of functions that manipulate tables in the way you like to do things. My library includes a list-to-set conversion and a higher-order list-searching function:
function table.set(t) -- set of list
local u = { }
for _, v in ipairs(t) do u[v] = true end
return u
end
function table.find(f, l) -- find element v of l satisfying f(v)
for _, v in ipairs(l) do
if f(v) then
return v
end
end
return nil
end
Write it however you want, but it's faster to iterate directly over the list, than to generate pairs() or ipairs()
#! /usr/bin/env lua
local items = { 'apple', 'orange', 'pear', 'banana' }
local function locate( table, value )
for i = 1, #table do
if table[i] == value then print( value ..' found' ) return true end
end
print( value ..' not found' ) return false
end
locate( items, 'orange' )
locate( items, 'car' )
orange found
car not found
Lua tables are more closely analogs of Python dictionaries rather than lists. The table you have create is essentially a 1-based indexed array of strings. Use any standard search algorithm to find out if a value is in the array. Another approach would be to store the values as table keys instead as shown in the set implementation of Jon Ericson's post.
This is a swiss-armyknife function you can use:
function table.find(t, val, recursive, metatables, keys, returnBool)
if (type(t) ~= "table") then
return nil
end
local checked = {}
local _findInTable
local _checkValue
_checkValue = function(v)
if (not checked[v]) then
if (v == val) then
return v
end
if (recursive and type(v) == "table") then
local r = _findInTable(v)
if (r ~= nil) then
return r
end
end
if (metatables) then
local r = _checkValue(getmetatable(v))
if (r ~= nil) then
return r
end
end
checked[v] = true
end
return nil
end
_findInTable = function(t)
for k,v in pairs(t) do
local r = _checkValue(t, v)
if (r ~= nil) then
return r
end
if (keys) then
r = _checkValue(t, k)
if (r ~= nil) then
return r
end
end
end
return nil
end
local r = _findInTable(t)
if (returnBool) then
return r ~= nil
end
return r
end
You can use it to check if a value exists:
local myFruit = "apple"
if (table.find({"apple", "pear", "berry"}, myFruit)) then
print(table.find({"apple", "pear", "berry"}, myFruit)) -- 1
You can use it to find the key:
local fruits = {
apple = {color="red"},
pear = {color="green"},
}
local myFruit = fruits.apple
local fruitName = table.find(fruits, myFruit)
print(fruitName) -- "apple"
I hope the recursive parameter speaks for itself.
The metatables parameter allows you to search metatables as well.
The keys parameter makes the function look for keys in the list. Of course that would be useless in Lua (you can just do fruits[key]) but together with recursive and metatables, it becomes handy.
The returnBool parameter is a safe-guard for when you have tables that have false as a key in a table (Yes that's possible: fruits = {false="apple"})
function valid(data, array)
local valid = {}
for i = 1, #array do
valid[array[i]] = true
end
if valid[data] then
return false
else
return true
end
end
Here's the function I use for checking if data is in an array.
Sort of solution using metatable...
local function preparetable(t)
setmetatable(t,{__newindex=function(self,k,v) rawset(self,v,true) end})
end
local workingtable={}
preparetable(workingtable)
table.insert(workingtable,123)
table.insert(workingtable,456)
if workingtable[456] then
...
end
The following representation can be used:
local items = {
["apple"]=true, ["orange"]=true, ["pear"]=true, ["banana"]=true
}
if items["apple"] then print("apple is a true value.") end
if not items["red"] then print("red is a false value.") end
Related output:
apple is a true value.
red is a false value.
You can also use the following code to check boolean validity:
local items = {
["apple"]=true, ["orange"]=true, ["pear"]=true, ["banana"]=true,
["red"]=false, ["blue"]=false, ["green"]=false
}
if items["yellow"] == nil then print("yellow is an inappropriate value.") end
if items["apple"] then print("apple is a true value.") end
if not items["red"] then print("red is a false value.") end
The output is:
yellow is an inappropriate value.
apple is a true value.
red is a false value.
Check Tables Tutorial for additional information.
function table.find(t,value)
if t and type(t)=="table" and value then
for _, v in ipairs (t) do
if v == value then
return true;
end
end
return false;
end
return false;
end
you can use this solution:
items = { 'a', 'b' }
for k,v in pairs(items) do
if v == 'a' then
--do something
else
--do something
end
end
or
items = {'a', 'b'}
for k,v in pairs(items) do
while v do
if v == 'a' then
return found
else
break
end
end
end
return nothing
A simple function can be used that :
returns nil, if the item is not found in table
returns index of item, if item is found in table
local items = { "apple", "orange", "pear", "banana" }
local function search_value (tbl, val)
for i = 1, #tbl do
if tbl[i] == val then
return i
end
end
return nil
end
print(search_value(items, "pear"))
print(search_value(items, "cherry"))
output of above code would be
3
nil