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.
Related
In the below code, can anyone explain why does t1:print() works but (t1):print fails. I am attempting to make something like (t1 * 3):print() work without using an intermediate variable.
function classTestTable(members)
members = members or {}
local mt = {
__metatable = members;
__index = members;
}
function mt.print(self)
print("something")
end
return mt
end
TestTable = {}
TestTable_mt = ClassTestTable(TestTable)
function TestTable:new()
return setmetatable({targ1 = 1}, TestTable_mt )
end
TestTable t1 = TestTable:new()
t1:print() -- works fine.
(t1):print() -- fails with error "attempt to call a boolean value"
Lua expressions can extend over multiple lines.
print
(3)
Will print 3
So
t1:print()
(t1):print()
actually is equivalent to
t1:print()(t1):print()
or
local a = t1:print()
local b = a(t1)
b:print()
So you're calling the return value of t1:print()
To avoid that follow Egors advice and separate both statements with a semicolon.
t1:print();(t1):print()
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
Ok, so I'm trying to follow the instructions found here: https://www.lua.org/pil/16.1.html to do something resembling OO programming in Lua (and the LOVE game framework), but it's not working. Here's the core of my code. I have a generic Object class:
local Object = {}
function Object:load(arg)
end
function Object:update(dt)
end
function Object:draw()
end
function Object:new(arg)
o = {}
setmetatable(o, self)
self.__index = self
o:load(arg)
return o
end
return Object
and a Ship class that inherits from it:
Object = require('objects.object')
local Ship = Object:new()
Ship.sprite = love.graphics.newImage('assets/sprites/ship.png')
Ship.sprite:setFilter('nearest', 'nearest', 0)
Ship.px = Ship.sprite:getWidth()/2
Ship.py = Ship.sprite:getHeight()/2
function Ship:load(arg)
self.x = arg.x or 0
self.y = arg.y or 0
self.sx = arg.sx or arg.s or 1
self.sy = arg.sy or arg.s or 1
self.rot = arg.rot or 0
self.tint = arg.tint or {255, 255, 255}
end
function Ship:draw()
love.graphics.setColor(self.tint)
love.graphics.draw(self.sprite, self.x, self.y, self.rot,
self.sx, self.sy, self.px, self.py)
love.graphics.setColor({255, 255, 255})
end
return Ship
Now the problem is, I create two of these Ships as members of another object with this code:
self.ship1 = Ship:new({x=50, y=self.y1, s=2, tint={0, 0.5, 1}})
self.ship2 = Ship:new({x=750, y=self.y2, s=-2, tint={1, 0.5, 0}})
But when I draw them, I only see one - the second. As it turns out, it's like the code above doesn't assign the new instances of Ship to ship1 and ship2, but directly to self, for reasons that I can't understand. Did I do something wrong or is this a weird bug of the interpreter?
It is not bug of the interpreter, it is designed behavior of the language. o={} creates global variable, which is not expected by the programmer here. "Why it is so?" is a frequent question to the language creator. There are many efforts to take control over that behavior simpler .
o = {} without local creates global variable global variable is accessible and shared between all the functions in the program, unless you use fancy environment scoping techniques. Using global variable inside a function opens up doors for various side effects, you should be careful with side effects.
I've removed some of the syntactic sugar and added code above can be equivalently written as follows:
Object.new = function(table_before_colon,arg)
highlander = {} --global variable, there can be only one
setmetatable(highlander,table_before_colon);
table_before_colon.__index = table_before_colon;
highlander:load(arg) -- table_before_colon.__index.load(highlander,arg)
return highlander
end
local Ship = Object:new()
--global highlander == Ship
--Ship.new points to Object.new
function Ship:load(arg)--equivalent to: Ship.load=function(self,arg)
--code that sets fields of the `self` object and is called from within new
self.x = arg.x or 0 -- equivalently highlander.x=arg.x or 0
end
Now, the presence of the global variable would not matter, if nothing happened to it in the period from the start of the new till the new returns. But, apparently, your other code is similar to this:
local OtherObject = Object:new()
--otherObject == highlander
OtherObject.load = function(new_other_obj,arg)
--highlander == new_other_obj
new_other_obj.ship1 = Ship:new({x=50, y=self.y1, s=2, tint={0, 0.5, 1}})
--highlander == new_other_obj.ship1
new_other_obj.ship2 = Ship:new({x=750, y=self.y2, s=-2, tint={1, 0.5, 0}})
--highlander == new_other_obj.ship2
end
So, OtherObject.load calls other functions, and those functions also access and modify the same global variable.
local some_object = OtherObject:new()
returns the global variable as it is at the end of the call, which is last set to the ship2 inside the call to Ship:new inside the call to OtherObject.load inside call to OtherObject:new.
Solved! Apparently, what was needed was this little snippet:
function Object:new(arg)
local o = {}
setmetatable(o, self)
self.__index = self
o:load(arg)
return o
end
Making o local in all my new methods solved everything. I don't know how it worked exactly but I assume having it in the global variable space broke something when the meta tables are set.
Hope someone can make sense of what I'm attempting to figure out, Just don't seem to understand Lua enough to achieve this.
--[[
tbl.a.test("moo") returns "Table A moo appears"
tbl.b.test("moo") returns "moo appears"
]]
tbl = {
a = { ID = "Table A" },
b = {
test = function(...) print(... .. " appears") end,
},
}
tbl.a__index = function(self, ...) tbl.b[self](tbl.a.ID .. ...) end
What I'm attempting to do is I could create several tables a, c, d, e and not have to copy test to each one. When tbl.a.test, tbl.c.test, tbl.d.test is used, It'll retrieve the tbl.a.ID var, then call tbl.b.test(ID, "moo")
So far all I'm finding out is it's not able to find .test on anything other than tbl.b
** EDIT **
Thank's to support so far the code is now;
tbl = {
a = { ID = "Table A " },
b = { test = function(...) local id, rest = ... print(id .. ": " .. rest) end },
}
setmetatable(tbl.a, {__index=function(self, k, ...) local rest = ... return tbl.b[k](tbl.a.ID, rest) end})
However, the ... is not being progressed for some odd reason :|
You're missing a period between tbl.a and __index.
__index needs to be on a's metatable, not the table itself.
You don't return anything from your __index function
self in the __index function is the table being indexed, not the key (which is the second argument)
This should work:
setmetatable(tbl.a, {__index=function(self, k) return tbl.b[k](tbl.a.ID) end})
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- [Sub]Class creation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
function newclass(new_obj,old_obj)
old_obj = old_obj or {} --use passed-in object (if any)
new_obj = new_obj or {}
assert(type(new_obj) == 'table','New Object/Class is not a table')
assert(type(old_obj) == 'table','Old Object/Class is not a table')
old_obj.__index = old_obj --store __index in parent object (optimization)
return setmetatable(new_obj,old_obj) --create 'new_obj' inheriting 'old_obj'
end
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
prototype = {
test = function(self,s) print('Table ' .. self.id .. ' ' .. s .. ' appears') end
}
tbl = {}
tbl.a = newclass({id = 'A'},prototype)
tbl.b = newclass({id = 'B'},prototype)
tbl.a:test('moo')
tbl.b:test('moo')
The distinction between class and object in Lua is only theoretical. In practice they are implemented exactly the same way.
Anytime you need to do inheritance, you can use my general-purpose newclass() function to either create a new class/object, or inherit from an existing one.
Any common code & data you would like to have passed on should go into the 'prototype' table (whatever you'd like to call it for each case).
Also, you seem to forget to use the method calling syntax (that uses a colon instead of a dot) when calling methods. Without it, the self parameter is not automatically recognized.
I need to create a structure. The structure must contain an array of "boolean conditions". Something like this:
function ReturnStructure ()
local structure = {
{A < 10},
{B == "smth"},
{FunctionReturnsTrueOrFalse(params)},
--...
}
return structure
end
structure = ReturnStructure()
print(structure[1][1]) -- prints true or false depending on the value of A
In fact these tables contain true or false, not conditions, because when we call function ReturnStructure and it creates a local table structure, all conditions in the fields will be executed. I want to create a structure whose fields will contain not boolean values, but something that I can execute (when I want to do it) and get a boolean value. I can achieve this by using anonymous functions:
function ReturnStructure ()
local structure = {
{function() return A < 10 end},
{function() return B == "smth" end},
{FunctionReturnsTrueOrFalse, params}, -- I don't call function in this line, a just put its adress and parameters to table.
--...
}
return structure
end
structure = ReturnStructure()
print(structure[1][1]) -- prints function: 0x109bdd0
print(structure[1][1]()) -- prints true or false. I execute condition in this string.
So, there is a code which works as I want it to, but it seems very ugly.
I want to hear some ideas on how to create a simpler and more beautiful table, without printing function () return ... in every field. I think that I should use a simple OOP implementation to create my structure as an object, but I don't know how to do it. I also will be happy to get some references to methods, implementations, articles etc., which can help me to find some ideas.
I want to hear some ideas on how to create a simpler and more beautiful table, without printing function () return ... in every field.
There aren't. If Lua had C#'s lambda syntax, you could write:
local structure = {
() => A < 10,
() => B == "smth",
() => FunctionReturnsTrueOrFalse(params),
But Lua likes to keep things small and simple, to avoid adding size and complexity to the language and its implementation, so we have one syntax for one function type.
You could store them as strings, then compile and run them later, but that's choosing form over function. You don't want to be invoking the compiler unnecessarily.
local structure = {
'A < 10',
'B == "smth"',
'FunctionReturnsTrueOrFalse(params)',
So your original solution is better. I don't particularly like the way that the first two items defer evaluating their arguments, while your third example evaluates the parameters at compile time. It would be more consistent to treat the FunctionReturnsTrueOrFalse the same
local structure = {
function() return A < 10 end,
function() return B == "smth" end,
function() return FunctionReturnsTrueOrFalse(param1) end,
This also means you don't need to put them in tables. Each is just a function you call, which simplifies the calling code as well.
If you really wanted to evaluate FunctionReturnsTrueOrFalse's arguments at compile time, I'd write a utility routine to build a closure from a function and its arguments:
local function bind(f, ...)
local args = {...}
return function() f(unpack(args)) end
end
Then use that to bind the function to its args:
local structure = {
function() return A < 10 end,
function() return B == "smth" end,
bind(FunctionReturnsTrueOrFalse, param1, param2, param3),
Then everything in your table is simply a function so you don't need special handling
function ReturnStructure ()
local structure = {
{'A < 10'},
{'B == "smth"'},
{FunctionReturnsTrueOrFalse, 'parameter'},
}
local function call_me(f, ...)
return (type(f)=='function' and f or
assert((load or loadstring)('return '..f)))(...)
end
return setmetatable({}, {
__index =
function(t,k)
if structure[k] then
return call_me((table.unpack or unpack)(structure[k]))
end
end,
__newindex = function(t,k,v) structure[k] = v end
})
end
A = 2
B = "anything"
function FunctionReturnsTrueOrFalse(par)
return #par > 5
end
structure = ReturnStructure()
print(structure[1]) -- true
print(structure[2]) -- false
print(structure[3]) -- true
structure[4] = {'1==0'}
print(structure[4]) -- false