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.
Related
NativeTable = {
["print"] = {},
["LoadResourceFile"] = {}
}
for k, v in pairs(NativeTable) do
k = function(...)
print("test")
end
end
this would result in defining them in the NativeTable and not as a global function
print = function(...)
print("test")
end
LoadResourceFile = function(...)
print("test")
end
So I'm trying to define a global function with a table name
Guess i could do smth like this
But there must be a better way?
NativeTable = {
["test"] = {},
["LoadResourceFile"] = {}
}
local function OverWriteFunction(FuncName, Func)
local Base = [[ = function(...)
print("jaa")
end
]]
local Final = FuncName .. Base
return Final
end
for k, v in pairs(NativeTable) do
load(OverWriteFunction(k))()
end
In your first example you are redefining the variable k, that is local inside the for loop, so this will not be usable outside the one loop where you define it.
Your second example is something you absolutely should avoid if you can, since defining code inside a string and loading it later means, that even only a syntax error will not be shown on "compiling" it, but only when that exact part is executed. And especially, when you are concatenating string that are meant to be code, you just get the risk of glueing something together wrongly, if you try to have that made generically.
If I understood correctly what you are trying to achieve, I would say, it could be something like this:
NativeTable = {
["test"] = {},
["LoadResourceFile"] = {},
[3] = {}
}
for k, v in pairs(NativeTable) do
if type(k) == "string" then
_G[k] = function(...)
print("output")
end
end
end
test()
LoadResourceFile()
-- _G[3]()
Which outputs:
output
output
What I have done here is to use the _G table which is the global environment of lua, all things you define there with a string in the brackets will be globally available (and what is globally available is inside that table, so be careful, since you can override other functions and variables you have defined!), even when writing it as a normal function call. I did also make sure, to only do this, when the type of k was string, otherwise you could start to define functions that can be called like the last commented out call.
This doesn't make too much sense for me:
NativeTable = {
["print"] = {},
["LoadResourceFile"] = {}
}
for k, v in pairs(NativeTable) do
k = function(...)
print("test")
end
end
First you create a table with table elements print and LoadResourceFile.
Then you iterate over that table and replace the table elements with functions.
Why not simply do this:
myTable = {
a = function() print("I'm function a") end,
b = function() print("I'm function b") end,
}
or
myTable = {}
myTable.a = function () print("I'm function a") end
Then you can call the global function like so: myTable.a()
If you insist on having those functions outside of a table you can simply insert them into the global environment table.
for k, v in pairs(myTable) do _G[k] = v end
then you could call a and b globally. But whatever you're trying to accomplish there's probably a better way than this.
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
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.