The Lua PIL and Luajit FFI tutorial gave two usages of __index in the metatable.
One is for indexing like obj[123], e.g.,
__index = function (self, k) return self._data+(k-self._lower)
The other usage is to define named methods, as given in the tutorial,
__index = { area = function(a) return a.x*a.x + a.y*a.y end， },
We can then make function call like obj:area().
Can I do both at the same time, e.g., direct indexing and named methods?
The answer, as is usual for extra-interesting code in Lua, is more metatables.
When your __index metamethod is actually a table, Lua simply does a standard table access on the given table. This means you can set a metatable on your metatable. Then you can set an __index metamethod on this "meta-metatable".
foo = function()
print("foo")
end
bar = function(_, key)
return function()
print(string.format("bar: %s", key))
end
end
mmt = { __index = bar }
mti = { foo = foo }
mt = { __index = mti }
t = {}
setmetatable(mti, mmt)
setmetatable(t, mt)
t.foo() -- prints: "foo"
t.bar() -- prints: "bar: bar"
t.baz() -- prints: "bar: baz"
With this, when you try to access a field which is absent in both tables, lua will first try to access the top-level table which will access the first metatable which will then call your metamethod in the second metatable.
There is also another, possibly more straight forward, answer: Use your __index metamethod to check another table for named fields:
foo = function()
print("foo")
end
f = { foo = foo }
bar = function(_, key)
if f[key] then return f[key] end
return function()
print(string.format("bar: %s", key))
end
end
mt = { __index = bar }
t = {}
setmetatable(t, mt)
t.foo() -- prints: "foo"
t.bar() -- prints: "bar: bar"
t.baz() -- prints: "bar: baz"
Tested on Lua 5.3.
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.
local ents = {
GetLocalPlayer = function()
local tbl = {
localplayer = {"Ava", "1", {213,234,234}},
GetIndex = function(self)
return self.localplayer[2]
end,
}
setmetatable(tbl, getmetatable(tbl.localplayer))
return tbl
end
}
local function main()
print(ents.GetLocalPlayer()[2])
end
main() print returns nil. If I was to do ents.GetLocalPlayer():GetIndex() however, it returns 1.
The idea is to have the default return value to be localplayer if I don't do things such as GetIndex()
A table has no default metatable, which is why your getmetatable call returns nil. In order to do anything, the second argument to setmetatable must be a table that has at least one metamethod. (__index is the most common metamethod.)
The solution is to change getmetatable(tbl.localplayer) to {__index = tbl.localplayer}.
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.
Hello I have the following bit of code which seems to work, but I'm not sure why - I've built a testclass as follows
class testclass {
int ivalue;
public:
int getivalue();
void setivalue(int &v);
};
and then registered the testclass (bits left out for the actual functions but they're pretty basic). It's the registration of the metatables I'm not following. (etivalue and setivalue are c functions that call the class functions of the same name)
static const struct luaL_Reg arraylib_f [] = {
{"new", new_testclass},
{NULL, NULL}
};
static const struct luaL_Reg arraylib_m [] = {
{"set", setivalue},
{"get", getivalue},
{NULL, NULL}
};
int luaopen_testclass (lua_State *L) {
luaL_newmetatable(L, "LuaBook.testclass");
lua_pushvalue(L, -1); /* duplicates the metatable */
lua_setfield(L, -2, "__index");
luaL_register(L, NULL, arraylib_m);
luaL_register(L, "testclass", arraylib_f);
return 1;
}
The bit I don't understand is I'm adding the functions to the __index for the metatable but
when I run
a = testclass.new()
a:set(10)
print(a:get())
Then it works as expected. The bit I don't understand is why the set is being called when I think I've loaded it in the __index metatable? Is that what I've done or something else?
tia
int luaopen_testclass (lua_State *L) {
luaL_newmetatable(L, "LuaBook.testclass"); //leaves new metatable on the stack
lua_pushvalue(L, -1); // there are two 'copies' of the metatable on the stack
lua_setfield(L, -2, "__index"); // pop one of those copies and assign it to
// __index field od the 1st metatable
luaL_register(L, NULL, arraylib_m); // register functions in the metatable
luaL_register(L, "testclass", arraylib_f);
return 1;
}
That code is equivalent to the example Lua code:
metatable = {}
metatable.__index = metatable
metatable.set = function() --[[ stuff --]] end
metatable.get = function() --[[ stuff --]] end
I assume that 'new_testclass' C function sets the metatable "LuaBook.testclass" for the returned table.
In your code you dont add functions to the metatable __index field. You assign pointer to metatable to that metatable's field named __index, and you register set and get functions to it.
Now, if you set that metatable to the value returned from 'new_testclass' function (which I assume you do) - lets call that value 'foo', and you call foo:set(10), than Lua:
checks that there is no such field as 'set' in 'foo'
sees that 'foo' has a metatable
looks at that metatable's __index field - sees it's a table
checks if that table assigned to __index field has a field 'set' and it's value is a function
calls 'set' method passing 'foo' as self parameter
I hope that this will help you figure out whats going on here.
If I understand your question, you are asking how the set() get() get invoked through the __index metamethod.
The code can be expressed in pure lua:
local o = {}
function o.get(self)
return self.ivalue
end
function o.set(self, val)
self.ivalue = val
end
a = {}
mt = {
__index = function(t, n)
return o[n]
end
}
setmetatable(a, mt)
print(a:get())
a:set(10)
print(a:get())
results:
nil
10
In this example the mt table is set as the a table's metatable. The __index metamethod is invoked for both get and set since neither get or set currently exist in table a.
If this example is changed instead to this:
local o = {}
function o.get(self)
return self.ivalue
end
function o.set(self, val)
self.ivalue = val
end
a = {}
function a.get(self)
print('here')
return self.ivalue
end
mt = {
__index = function(t, n)
return o[n]
end
}
setmetatable(a, mt)
print(a:get())
a:set(10)
print(a:get())
results:
here
nil
here
10
In this case the __index metamethod is NOT invoked for get() since a get index already exists in the a table.
Many interesting constructs can be created using metamethods, once you understand how they work. I suggest reading 13.4.1 - The __index Metamethod in PiL and work through a few more examples. All of the above can also be done from the c api.
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