I'm in the middle of writing a World of Warcraft addon and I want the addon to be able to perform certain functions based on a key press or a combination of key presses. Most of the key states are protected WoW API functions now but the following are still able to be used by addons:
IsAltKeyDown()
IsControlKeyDown()
IsShiftKeyDown()
What I'd like to be able to do is perform a function based on any one of those keys down or a combination there of.
This is what I've got working:
function KeyCombos()
total = 0
if IsShiftKeyDown() then
total = total + 1
end
if IsControlKeyDown() then
total = total + 2
end
if IsAltKeyDown() then
total = total + 4
end
end
Now my question isn't necessarily about Lua, as the above function is working as I can check if total equals 6 for example to see if Control and Alt are both pressed. My question is more of an algorithmic one. Is there a better way to perform this programmaticly?
If you are going to use a table, in the general case it would be much better to keep the same table.
function KeyCombos()
keys = keys or {}
keys.shift = IsShiftKeyDown()
keys.control = IsControlKeyDown()
keys.alt = IsAltKeyDown()
end
or, if you rather
function KeyCombos()
if not keys then
keys = {}
end
keys.shift = IsShiftKeyDown()
keys.control = IsControlKeyDown()
keys.alt = IsAltKeyDown()
end
The original example in the question, however, is much more performant using integer math.
However these examples all create globals. So:
function GetKeyCombos()
local keys = 0
if IsShiftKeyDown() then
keys = keys + 1
end
if IsControlKeyDown() then
keys = keys + 2
end
if IsAltKeyDown() then
keys = keys + 4
end
return keys
end
would be much better. In WoW all AddOns share the same global environment so its best to keep it clean.
Seems pretty sound to me already.
As an alternative, however, you could use a table:
function KeyCombos()
keys = {
shift = IsShiftKeyDown(),
control = IsControlKeyDown(),
alt = IsAltKeyDown(),
}
end
Then you could call keys.alt or keys["alt"] to see if it's pressed.
More readable? Probably. More efficient? Not likely. But I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to Lua's performance.
I would just add a comment block above the KeyCombos function stating every possible combination and what it means.
As a side note, it's Lua, not LUA.
Related
I wanto to create a crossword puzzles's solver with Lua. I'm not used to this language tho and my english is poor, sorry for that.
I have to iterate multiples times the same table of tables checking if the given word is present or not and, if present, replace every char of that word in the table with a "*" simbol.
For example:
schema= {
{"A","B","C","D","H","F","G","W","T","Y"},
{"U","H","E","L","L","O","I","I","O","L"},
{"G","F","D","R","Y","T","R","G","R","R"}}
function(schema,"HELLO")
schema= {
{"A","B","C","D","H","F","G","W","T","Y"},
{"U","*","*","*","*","*","I","I","O","L"},
{"G","F","D","R","Y","T","R","G","R","R"}}
For now i'm focusing on find the word scanning the table from left to right. Here's my code:
i = 1
t = {}
for k,w in pairs(schema) do
t[k] = w
end
cercaPrima = function(tabella,stringa)
for v = 1, 10 do
if string.sub(stringa,1,1) == t[i][v] then
print(t[i][v]) v = v+1
return cercaDS(t,stringa,i,v)
else
v = v+1
end
end
if i < #t then
i = i+1
cercaPrima(tabella,stringa)
else
return print("?")
end
end
cercaDS = function(tabella,stringa,d,s)
local o = 2
local l = 2
while o <= #stringa do
if string.sub(stringa,o,l) == tabella[d][s] then
print(tabella[d][s])
tabella[d][s] = "*"
s=s+1
o=o+1
l=l+1
else
l=l-1
s=s-l
o=#stringa+1
tabella[d][s] = "*"
return cercaPrima(tabella,stringa)
end
end
end
cercaPrima(schema,"HELLO")
It's probably overcomplicated, but my question is: How can I make it ignore the first "H" (not turning it into a "*") while keep iterating the table looking for another "H" who fits the criteria?
My goal is to create a function who takes a table and a list of words in input, iterates the table looking for every single word, if it finds them all it replaces every char of every word found in the table with a "*" and print the remaining characters as a string.
Another problem that i'll probabily have is: what if a char of a word is a char of another word too? It will read "*" instead of the real char if it has already found the first word.
Should I create a new table for every word I'm looking for? But then how can i merge those table togheter to extrapolate the remaining characters?
Thank you for your help!
If you want to ignore something one time you can use a conditional statement. Just remember that you encountered it already using a variable. But I don't see how this makes sense here.
A problem like this is probably solved better by turing each line and column into strings and then stimply search the strings for words.
I find string.gsub() is a great find and replacement tool.
Maybe it hit not all requirements but maybe it inspire you.
> function cercaPrisma(tab,txt) for i=1,#tab do print((table.concat(tab[i]):gsub(txt, ('*'):rep(txt:len())))) end end
> cercaPrisma(schema, 'HELLO')
ABCDHFGWTY
U*****IIOL
GFDRYTRGRR
> cercaPrisma(schema, 'DRY')
ABCDHFGWTY
UHELLOIIOL
GF***TRGRR
I am making a roguelike in Love2D as a hobby project. My approach is to try and use as much of the native capabilities of Lua and the Love2D (0.10.1) API as possible, without relying on fancy libraries like middleclass or HUMP, so as to learn more about the language.
After reading PiL's chapters on OOP and seeing the power there, I decided to set up a Mob class (using metamethods to emulate class functionality) that encompasses the players, monsters, and other NPCs (anything that can move). So, far, it's working beautifully, I can create all kinds of instances easily that share methods and all that stuff. But there's a lot of things I don't know how to do, yet, and one of them is holding my prototype up from further progress.
Setting up collision with the map itself wasn't too bad. My maps are tables full of tables full of integers, with 0 being the floor. The game draws "." and "#" and "+" and such to denote various inanimate objects, from each table. Player 1 moves using the numpad, and their position is tracked by dividing their raw pixel position by 32 to create a grid of 32x32 "tiles". Then, inside love.keypressed(key), I have lines like:
if key == "kp8" and currentmap[player1.grid_y - 1][player1.grid_x] == 0 then
player1.grid_y = player1.grid_y - 1
and so on, with elseifs for each key the player can press. This prevents them from walking through anything that isn't an open floor tile in the map itself.
But, I'm trying to implement some kind of "collision detection" to prevent MOBs from walking through each other and to use in writing the rules for combat, and this is trickier. I had a method in place to calculate the distance between mobs, but I'm told this might eventually cause rounding errors, plus it had to be written for each combination of mobs I want to test, individually.
What I'd like to know is: Is there a known (preferably elegant) way to get all instances of a particular class to pass some number of values to a table?
What I'd like to do is "ask" every Mob on a given map where they are, and have them "report" self.grid_x and self.grid_y to another layer of map that's just for tracking mobs (1 if self.is_here is true, 0 if not, or similar), that gets updated every turn. Then, I could implement collision rules based on coordinates being equal, or maybe a foo.is_here flag or something.
I have only vague ideas about how to proceed, however. Any help would be appreciated, including (and maybe especially) feedback as to a better way to do what I'm trying to do. Thanks!
A simple idea is to store "who is here" information for every cell of the field and update this information on every move of every object.
function create_game_field()
-- initialize a table for storing "who is here" information
who_is_here = {}
for y = 1,24 do
who_is_here[y] = {}
for x = 1,38 do
who_is_here[y][x] = 0
end
end
end
function Mob:can_move(dx, dy)
local u = currentmap[self.y + dy][self.x + dx]
local v = who_is_here[self.y + dy][self.x + dx]
if u == 0 and v == 0 then
return true
else
end
end
function Mob:move(dx, dy)
-- update "who is here"
who_is_here[self.y][self.x] = 0
self.x, self.y = self.x + dx, self.y + dy
who_is_here[self.y][self.x] = 1
end
function Mob:who_is_there(dx, dy) -- look who is standing on adjacent cell
return who_is_here[self.y + dy][self.x + dx] -- return mob or nil
end
function Mob:roll_call()
who_is_here[self.y][self.x] = 1
end
Usage example:
-- player1 spawns in at (6,9) on the grid coords
player1 = Mob:spawn(6,9)
-- player1 added to who_is_here
player1:roll_call()
Then, in love.keypressed(key):
if key == "kp8" and player1:can_move(0, -1) then
player1:move(0, -1)
end
There are a few ways you could get all your instances data but one of the simpler ones is probably to have them all be added to a table when they are created. Providing you add the entire table for that instance, all the values will update in the main table because it acts like a collection of pointers.
function mob:new( x, y, type )
self.x = 100
self.y = 200
self.type = type
-- any other declarations you need
table.insert(allMobs, self)
return self
end
Here we insert all the mobs into the table 'allMobs'. Once we have that we can simply iterate through and get all our coordinates.
for i, v in ipairs(allMobs) do
local x, y = v.x, v.y
-- Do whatever you need with the coordinates. Add them to another table, compare
-- them to others, etc.
end
Now we have a table with all our mobs in it and a way to access each of their positions. If you have any further inquiries then let me know.
I would like to be able to have a chunk of Lua code (a "script") that could be shared among enemy types in a game but where each instance of a script gets a unique execution environment. To illustrate my problem, this is my first attempt at what a script might look like:
time_since_last_shoot = 0
tick = function(entity_id, dt)
time_since_last_shoot = time_since_last_shoot + dt
if time_since_last_shoot > 10 then
enemy = find_closest_enemy(entity_id)
shoot(entity_id, enemy)
time_since_last_shoot = 0
end
end
But that fails since I'd be sharing the global time_since_last_shoot variable among all my enemies. So then I tried this:
spawn = function(entity)
entity.time_since_last_shoot = 0;
end
tick = function(entity, dt)
entity.time_since_last_shoot = entity.time_since_last_shoot + dt
if entity.time_since_last_shoot > 10 then
enemy = find_closest_enemy(entity)
shoot(entity, enemy)
entity.time_since_last_shoot = 0
end
end
And then for each entity I create a unique table and then pass that as the first argument when I call the spawn and tick functions. And then somehow map that table back to an id at runtime. Which could work, but I have a couple concerns.
First, it's error prone. A script could still accidentally create global state that could lead to difficult to debug problems later in the same script or even others.
And second, since the update and tick functions are themselves global, I'll still run into issues when I go to create a second type of enemy which tries to use the same interface. I suppose I could solve that with some kind of naming convention but surely there's a better way to handle that.
I did find this question which seems to be asking the same thing, but the accepted answer is light on specifics and refers to a lua_setfenv function that isn't present in Lua 5.3. It seems that it was replaced by _ENV, unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Lua to fully understand and/or translate the concept.
[edit] A third attempt based on the suggestion of #hugomg:
-- baddie.lua
baddie.spawn = function(self)
self.time_since_last_shoot = 0
end
baddie.tick = function(self, dt)
entity.time_since_last_shoot = entity.time_since_last_shoot + dt
if entity.time_since_last_shoot > 10 then
enemy = find_closest_enemy(entity)
shoot(entity, enemy)
entity.time_since_last_shoot = 0
end
end
And in C++ (using sol2):
// In game startup
sol::state lua;
sol::table global_entities = lua.create_named_table("global_entities");
// For each type of entity
sol::table baddie_prototype = lua.create_named_table("baddie_prototype");
lua.script_file("baddie.lua")
std::function<void(table, float)> tick = baddie_prototype.get<sol::function>("tick");
// When spawning a new instance of the enemy type
sol::table baddie_instance = all_entities.create("baddie_instance");
baddie_instance["entity_handle"] = new_unique_handle();
// During update
tick(baddie_instance, 0.1f);`
This works how I expected and I like the interface but I'm not sure if it follows the path of least surprise for someone who might be more familiar with Lua than I. Namely, my use of the implicit self parameter and my distinction between prototype/instance. Do I have the right idea or have I done something weird?
For your first issue (accidentally creating globals), you can rely on a linter like luacheck or a module that prevents you from creating globals like strict.lua from Penlight.
And then, why not just make things local? I mean both time_since_last_shoot and tick. This leverages closures, one of the most useful features of Lua. If you want different tick functions, each with its own variables, you can do something like this:
local function new_tick()
local time_since_last_shoot = 0
return function(entity_id, dt)
time_since_last_shoot = time_since_last_shoot + dt
if time_since_last_shoot > 10 then
local enemy = find_closest_enemy(entity_id)
shoot(entity_id, enemy)
time_since_last_shoot = 0
end
end
end
local tick_1 = new_tick()
local tick_2 = new_tick()
Of course, you could also use the environment for this, but here I think local variables and closure are a better solution to the problem.
The way _ENV works in 5.3 is that global variable are "syntactic" sugar for reading fields from the _ENV variable. For example, a program that does
local x = 10
y = 20
print(x + y)
is equivalent to
local x = 10
_ENV.y = 20
_ENV.print(x + _ENV.y)
By default, _ENV is a "global table" that works like you would expect global variables to behave. However, if you create a local variable (or function argument) named _ENV then in that variable's scope any unbound variables will point to this new environment instead of point to the usual global scope. For example, the following program prints 10:
local _ENV = {
x = 10,
print=print
}
-- the following line is equivalent to
-- _ENV.print(_ENV.x)
print(x)
In your program, one way to use this technique would be to add an extra parameter to your functions for the environment:
tick = function(_ENV, entity, dt)
-- ...
end
then, any global variables inside the function will actually just be accessing fields in the _ENV parameter instead of actually being global.
That said, I'm not sure _ENV is the best tool to solve your problem. For your first problem, of accidentally creating globals, a simpler solution would be to use a linter to warn you if you assign to an undeclared global variable. As for the second problem, you could just put the update and tick functions in a table instead of having them be global.
I need this for a game server using Lua..
I would like to be able to save all combinations of a name
into a string that can then be used with:
if exists (string)
example:
ABC_-123
aBC_-123
AbC_-123
ABc_-123
abC_-123
etc
in the game only numbers, letters and _ - . can be used as names.
(A_B-C, A-B.C, AB_8 ... etc)
I understand the logic I just don't know how to code it:D
0-Lower
1-Upper
then
000
001
etc
You can use recursive generator. The first parameter contains left part of the string generated so far, and the second parameter is the remaining right part of the original string.
function combinations(s1, s2)
if s2:len() > 0 then
local c = s2:sub(1, 1)
local l = c:lower()
local u = c:upper()
if l == u then
combinations(s1 .. c, s2:sub(2))
else
combinations(s1 .. l, s2:sub(2))
combinations(s1 .. u, s2:sub(2))
end
else
print(s1)
end
end
So the function is called in this way.
combinations("", "ABC_-123")
You only have to store intermediate results instead of printing them.
If you are interested only in the exists function then you don't need all combinations.
local stored_string = "ABC_-123"
function exists(tested_string)
return stored_string:lower() == tested_string:lower()
end
You simply compare the stored string and the tested string in case-insensitive way.
It can be easily tested:
assert(exists("abC_-123"))
assert(not exists("abd_-123"))
How to do this?
There's native function in Lua to generate all permutations of a string, but here are a few things that may prove useful.
Substrings
Probably the simplest solution, but also the least flexible. Rather than combinations, you can check if a substring exists within a given string.
if str:find(substr) then
--code
end
If this solves your problem, I highly reccomend it.
Get all permutations
A more expensive, but still a working solution. This accomplishes nearly exactly what you asked.
function GetScrambles(str, tab2)
local tab = {}
for i = 1,#str do
table.insert(tab, str:sub(i, i))
end
local tab2 = tab2 or {}
local scrambles = {}
for i = 0, Count(tab)-1 do
local permutation = ""
local a = Count(tab)
for j = 1, #tab do
tab2[j] = tab[j]
end
for j = #tab, 1, -1 do
a = a / j
b = math.floor((i/a)%j) + 1
permutation = permutation .. tab2[b]
tab2[b] = tab2[j]
end
table.insert(scrambles, permutation)
end
return scrambles
end
What you asked
Basically this would be exactly what you originally asked for. It's the same as the above code, except with every substring of the string.
function GetAllSubstrings(str)
local substrings = {}
for i = 1,#str do
for ii = i,#str do
substrings[#substrings+1]=str:sub(ii)
end
end
return substrings
end
Capitals
You'd basically have to, with every permutation, make every possible combination of capitals with it.
This shouldn't be too difficult, I'm sure you can code it :)
Are you joking?
After this you should probably be wondering. Is all of this really necessary? It seems like a bit much!
The answer to this lies in what you are doing. Do you really need all the combinations of the given characters? I don't think so. You say you need it for case insensitivity in the comments... But did you know you could simply convert it into lower/upper case? It's very simple
local str = "hELlO"
print(str:lower())
print(str:upper())
This is HOW you should store names, otherwise you should leave it case sensitive.
You decide
Now YOU pick what you're going to do. Whichever direction you pick, I wish you the best of luck!
I am making a game using Lua and I need to use Breadth-first search to implement a fast path-finding algorithm which finds the shortest path between the enemy AI and the player.
I will have up to 3 enemies using this algorithm at once and map is a 2-dimensional tile-based maze. I have already implemented collision detection so now all that is left to do is get a way for the enemies to find the shortest path to the player in a way that can be done quickly and and preferably about 80-90 times per second per enemy.
When I previously implemented breadth-first search, I used a queue in C++. From what I have read about Lua, stack implementations using tables are very efficient since the elements don't need to be shifted after push() (AKA table.insert) and pop() (table.remove) operations. However, I have theorized that queues with large sizes can be very inefficient in Lua, because if you want to insert/remove something from index 1 of a table, all other elements in the table must be shifted either upward or downward in the table.
Thus, I would like to ask some simple questions for those experienced in Lua. What is the simplest and/or fastest implementation of a queue in this language? Is it even possible to have a fast queue in Lua or is it just generally accepted that Lua will always be forced to "shift" all elements for a queue operation such as pop() or append()?
EDIT: I understand that the underlying implementation of "shifting elements" in Lua tables is written in C and is therefore quite optimized. I just would like to know if I have any better options for queues before I begin to write a simple table implementation.
A fast implementation of queue(actually double queue) in Lua is done by the book Programming in Lua:
List = {}
function List.new ()
return {first = 0, last = -1}
end
It can insert or remove an element at both ends in constant time, the key is to store both first and last.
function List.pushleft (list, value)
local first = list.first - 1
list.first = first
list[first] = value
end
function List.pushright (list, value)
local last = list.last + 1
list.last = last
list[last] = value
end
function List.popleft (list)
local first = list.first
if first > list.last then error("list is empty") end
local value = list[first]
list[first] = nil -- to allow garbage collection
list.first = first + 1
return value
end
function List.popright (list)
local last = list.last
if list.first > last then error("list is empty") end
local value = list[last]
list[last] = nil -- to allow garbage collection
list.last = last - 1
return value
end