I'm learning Lua and how to implement OOP. Trying out a test example of an object seems to return one of the argument of the object as 'null' despite being assigned one.
function Character(Name, Level, Class) --Constructor
return {GetName = T.GetName, GetLevel = T.GetLevel, GetClass = T.GetClass}
end
end
-- Snippets
Player = Character("Bob", 1, "Novice")
When I try printing Player.GetName() it returns null instead of Bob. Where have I gone wrong?
Here is the full code.
OOP in Lua takes a bit more than what you have done there, you will want to make use of metatables and upvalues.
-- How you could define your character structure.
local Character = {}
function Character.GetName(self)
return self.name
end
function Character.new(Name, Level, Class)
local _meta = {}
local _private = {}
_private.name = Name
_private.level = Level
_private.class = Class
_meta.__index = function(t, k) -- This allows access to _private
return rawget(_private, k) or rawget(Character, k)
end
_meta.__newindex = function(t, k, v) -- This prevents the value from being shaded
if rawget(_private, k) or rawget(Character, k) then
error("this field is protected")
else
rawset(t, k, v)
end
end
return setmetatable({}, _meta) --return an empty table with our meta methods implemented
end
This creates a local table _private when you create a new instance of a Character. That local table is an upvalue to the _meta.__index and it cannot be accessed outside the scope of the Character.new function. _private can be accessed when __index is called because it is an upvalue.
-- How to use the character structure
player = Character.new("Bob", 10, "Novice")
npc = Character.new("Alice", 11, "Novice")
print(player:GetName())
I use player:GetName(), but in all honesty you can just do player.name as well.
Resources for more on this topic:
http://tutorialspoint.com/lua/lua_metatables.htm
http://lua-users.org/wiki/ObjectOrientationTutorial
Related
in the code below, i set up a __call metafunction which, in theory, should allow me to call the table as a function and invoke the constructor, instead of using test.new()
test = {}
function test:new()
self = {}
setmetatable(self, self)
--- private properties
local str = "hello world"
-- public properties
self.__index = self
self.__call = function (cls, ...) print("Constructor called!") return cls.new(...) end
self.__tostring = function() return("__tostring: "..str) end
self.tostring = function() return("self:tstring(): "..str) end
return self
end
local t = test:new()
print(t) -- __tostring overload works
print(tostring(t)) -- again, __tostring working as expected
print(t:tostring()) -- a public call, which works
t = test() -- the __call metamethod should invoke the constructor test:new()
output:
> __tostring: hello world
> __tostring: hello world
> self.tostring(): hello world
> error: attempt to call global `test` (a table value) (x1)
(i'm using metatable(self, self) because i read somewhere it produces less overhead when creating new instances of the class. also it's quite clean-looking. it may also be where i'm getting unstuck).
You're setting the __call metamethod on the wrong table - the self table - rather than the test table. The fix is trivial:
test.__call = function(cls, ...) print("Constructor called!") return cls.new(...) end
setmetatable(test, test)
After this, test(...) will be equivalent to test.new(...).
That said, your current code needs a refactoring / rewrite; you overwrite the implicit self parameter in test:new, build the metatable on each constructor call, and don't even use test as a metatable! I suggest moving methods like tostring to test and setting the metatable of self to a metatable that has __index = test. I'd also suggest separating metatables and tables in general. I'd get rid of upvalue-based private variables for now as they require you to use closures, which practically gets rid of the metatable benefit of not having to duplicate the functions per object. This is how I'd simplify your code:
local test = setmetatable({}, {__call = function (cls, ...) return cls.new(...) end})
local test_metatable = {__index = test}
function test.new()
local self = setmetatable({}, test_metatable)
self._str = "hello world" -- private by convention
return self
end
function test_metatable:__tostring()
return "__tostring: " .. self._str
end
function test:tostring()
return "self:tstring(): " .. self._str
end
If you like, you can merge test and test_metatable; I prefer to keep them separated however.
No matter how I approach Lua, I run into this error all the time, so I must not understand something inherit to the language:
attempt to call method 'func' (a nil value)
I've seen the error here a few times as well but the problem doesn't seem clear to me.
Here's my module:
actor.lua
Actor = {
x = 0,
mt = {},
new = function()
local new_actor = {}
new_actor.x = Actor.x
new_actor.mt = Actor.mt
return new_actor
end,
test = function(self, a, b)
print(a, b)
end
}
I'm using Löve.
main.lua
require "game/actor"
local a = Actor:new() --works fine
function love.load()
a.x = 10
print(a.x) --output: 10
a:test(11, 12) --error: attempt to call method 'test' (a nil value)
end
I'm also not sure when it's appropriate to use the previous styling over this in a module.
Actor = {
x = 0
}
Actor.mt = {}
function Actor.new()
print(42)
end
I'm honestly not sure what is more correct than the other but considering I run into a simple error either way, there's probably something I'm missing entirely?
It looks like you're trying to instance a kind of class made of metatables. You basically need to assign new_actor's metatable with Actor.mt. (Resuming the problem: when you're indexing new_actor you're not indexing Actor in this case)
setmetatable(new_actor, Actor.mt);
Even if the metatable is being added, it won't work until you put the meta "__index" event to index a table containing your class methods/values, in this case:
Actor.mt = {
__index = Actor
};
I'd suggest moving your class methods/values into a new table, like Actor.prototype, Actor.fn, etc... avoiding conflicts:
Actor.fn = {
test = function(self, a, b)
print(a, b)
end
};
Actor.mt = {
__index = Actor.fn
};
More about metatables in Lua 5.3 manual.
The goal is to match a key of a table with a value depending of the key.
example = { ["dummy"] = this .. " example" }
print example.dummy -- print "dummy example"
Where this is the keyword to refer to the key. Is there any way to do that in Lua?
There is no way to do this directly.
You could do some preprocessing:
example = { ["dummy"] = "{THIS} example" }
for k,v in pairs(example) do
example[k]=v:gsub("{THIS}",k)
end
print(example.dummy)
It's not possible to have as clean an expression as:
t = { foo = this .. ' bar' }
because this would always be expressed without relation to the key or the table. That is, you can't capture an expression as the value of a table entry.
What is possible is implementing some level of indirection using metatables and functions, but it's hardly pretty. Here we do fetch-time evaluation. You could also recompute the results.
local function indirect_table ()
local uptable = {}
return setmetatable({}, {
__index = function (self, key)
local value = uptable[key]
return type(value) == 'function' and uptable[key](key) or value
end,
__newindex = function (self, key, value)
uptable[key] = value
--[[precompute, with no need for an uptable, or __index:
`rawset(self, key, value(key)`]]
end
})
end
local tab = indirect_table()
tab.foo = function (key) return key .. 'bar' end
print(tab.foo) --> 'foobar'
Note: this example uses a closure, but you can implement this kind of pattern using getmetatable as well.
Personally, I'd abstract this into an indirection pattern that allows arbitrary keys and values, and their actions to be specified. I figure this kind of pattern would mostly be used programatically, rather than by hand, where the results of key values are dependent on the inputs received. Again, not pretty, but a little more robust (optional actions).
local function I (_, value) return value end
local K = setmetatable({
__call = function (actor, key)
return actor.action(key, actor.value)
end
}, {
__call = function (K, value, action)
return setmetatable({ value = value, action = action or I }, K)
end
})
local T = setmetatable({
__newindex = function (self, key, value)
if getmetatable(value) == K then
value = value(key)
end
rawset(self, key, value)
end
}, {
__call = function (T, o)
return setmetatable(o or {}, T)
end
})
Simple use:
local function concat (left, right) return left .. right end
local t = T {}
t.foo = K('bar', concat) -- with a common action
t.zar = K({}, unknown_action) -- without action (`nil`)
t.qux = 'qaz' -- standard
print(t.foo, t.zar, t.qux)
This is strange metaprogramming. I'd double-check the reasoning for needing such an approach. Perhaps you're falling into an XY Problem trap? Really feels like a solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist in the first place.
I am have a situation where two libraries L,M, are trying to set a metatable for _G (named mL, mM respectively). The only thing in the metatables are __index.
How can I chain these two metatables so that if the __index in one fails it calls the index in the other?
Have one metatable that stores both mL and mM, and if one returns nil, check the other:
local metatbl = {}
metatbl.tbls = {mL, mM};
function metatbl.__index(intbl, key)
for i, mtbl in ipairs(metatbl.tbls) do
local mmethod = mtbl.__index
if(type(mmethod) == "function") then
local ret = mmethod(table, key)
if ret then return ret end
else
if mmethod[key] then return mmethod[key] end
end
return nil
end
end
setmetatable(_G,metatbl)
Assuming there's a point where your code can fiddle with _G's metatable itself, after the libraries have mucked about, to fix what L and M did, you can just stick in your own metatable that does the combined search, e.g.:
combined_metatable = {
__index = function (t, k)
return mL.__index (t, k) or mM.__index (t, k)
end
}
setmetatable (_G, combined_metatable)
That has the advantage of not fiddling with mL or mM themselves.
If you don't have the opportunity to correct things after the fact, you could just modify the __index entries of the library metatables to do the combined search:
local original_mM_index = mM.__index
local original_mL_index = mL.__index
local function L_then_M_index (t, k)
return original_mL_index (t, k) or original_mM_index (t, k)
end
mL.__index = L_then_M_index
mM.__index = L_then_M_index
[Note that as both library metatables are modified, this will work whichever gets installed last ("winning" the competition).]
Use __metatable to give them a table that isn't actually the metatable or give the library a different setmetatable: that way they can't change your _G metatable.
getmetatable(getfenv()).__metatable = function ( o ) return { } end
OR
local orig_setmetatable = setmetatable
function setmetatable ( ob , mt )
if ob == getfenv() or ob == _G then
return ob
else
return orig_setmetatable(ob,mt)
end
end
(depending on how the library does things)
If you still want to track the things it does to the metatable; look through mt before the return ob (and if you actually wanted to chain __index lookups; add to a table):
local env_indexes = {}
setmetatable(_G,{__index=function(t,k) for i,m in ipairs(env_indexes) do local v=m[k]; if v then return v end end return nil end } )
local orig_setmetatable = setmetatable
function setmetatable ( ob , mt )
if ob == _G then
table.insert ( env_indexes , mt.__index )
return ob
else
return orig_setmetatable(ob,mt)
end
end
Otherwise this is very bad practice for libraries to be doing; tell the author not to!
I'm trying to write a metatable so that all indexes into the table are shifted up one position (i.e. t[i] should return t[i+1]). I need to do this because the table is defined using index 1 as the first element, but I have to interface with a program that uses index 0 as the first element. Since reading Programming in Lua, I think that I can accomplish what I want with a proxy table, but I can't seem to get it working. So far, I have this:
t = {"foo", "bar"}
local _t = t
t = {}
local mt = {
__index = function(t, i)
return _t[i+1]
end
}
setmetatable(t, mt)
However, this does not create the expected result. In fact, it doesn't return any values at all (every lookup is nil). Is there a better way to do this, or am I just missing something?
t = {"foo", "bar"}
local _t = t
t = {}
local mt = {
__index = function(t, i)
return _t[i+1]
end
}
setmetatable(t, mt)
print(t[0])
outputs "foo" for me when run here: http://www.lua.org/cgi-bin/demo