---Context---
I want to have a class called "fileProcessor". This class is completely static and merely serves as a convinient namespace (within my normal library namespace) for some global function. This is a basic blueprint of the class with only the relevant stuff
class fileProcessor{
private:
lua_State* LUA_state;
public:
static std::variant<type1,type2> processFile(const char* filePath,const char* processorScript);
}
Please note again that I ommitted most of the stuff from the class so if anything seems odd ignore it.
What process file is supposed to do is:
Read the filePath file, storing all directives including it (this is my own filetype or style of syntax. This is already handeled correctly). The directives are stored with strings, one for the command and one for everything after it.
Read the script file and check if it has a commented out fileProcessor line at the top. This is to make sure that the lua script loaded is relevant and not some random behaviour script
Load and compile the lua script.
Make all read directives available (they are saved in a struct of 2 strings as mentioned before)
Run the file and recieve a object back. The object should only be of types that I listed in the return type (variant)
I am having problems with step 4 and one vital part of the scripting.
---Question---
How can I make the creation of a full new object of type1 or type2 possible within lua, write to it from within lua and then get it back from the lua stack into c++ and still know if its type1 or type2?
---No example provided since this question is more general and the only reason I provided my class is for context.---
It seems like you are trying to do it the other way around. I quote a part of this answer:
...you are expecting Lua to be the primary language, and C++ to be the client. The problem is, that the Lua C interface is not designed to work like that, Lua is meant to be the client, and all the hard work is meant to be written in C so that Lua can call it effortlessly.
If you are convinced there is no other way that doing it other way around you can follow the workaround that answer has given. Otherwise I think you can achieve what you need by using LUA as it meant to be.
LUA has 8 basic types (nil, boolean, number, string, userdata, function, thread, and table). But you can add new types as you require by creating a class as the new type in native C++ and registering it with LUA.
You can register by either:
Using some LUA helper for C++ like luna.h (as shown in this tutorial).
Pushing a new lua table with the C++ class (check this answer).
Class object instance is created in your native C++ code and passed to LUA. LUA then makes use of the methods given by the class interface.
Related
I'm using Lua for scripts in my C++ game. I want to be able to attach scripts to entities, and based on which functions are defined in the script, register for callbacks which will run the script functions at the appropriate time.
I believe that I can encapsulate different scripts from each other, by making the "script" into a table. Basically, ... lua source code ... would become ScriptName = { ... lua source code ... }. Then instead of calling func(), I'd call ScriptName.func(), and thus two scripts defining the same function (aka registering for the same event) wouldn't trample over each other.
My problem now is in encapsulating different entities sharing the same script. Obviously I don't want them to be sharing variables, but with what I'm doing now, any variable defined by a script would be shared by every instance of that script, which is just really bad. I could maybe try something similar to my above solution on the source level, by wrapping every script with EntityID.ScriptName = { ... } before compiling it. Something tells me there's a better way, though, I just don't know it.
Another factor is that scripts need to be able to reference entities and scripts/components relative to a specific entity. If I use the above method the best solution to this would be passing entity IDs around as strings which could reference the table specific to that entity, I think? At this point I really have no idea what I'm doing.
In order for a script to interact with a C++ object, the typical approach is to have the C++ code expose the object to Lua as a userdata (a wrapper for a pointer) and provide C++ functions that the script can call, passing the userdata as parameter. In the C++ code, that userdata gives you the object that the function should to operate on. It's equivalent to a "this" pointer.
You usually do this by putting the C++ functions into a metatable associated with the userdata, so they can be called like methods in the Lua code (i.e. objectIGotFromCpp:someMethod('foo').
ScriptName.func(), and thus two scripts defining the same function (aka registering for the same event) wouldn't trample over each other.
Rather than relying on accessing globals or naming conventions, ect. it's much cleaner to simply provide a callback that Lua scripts can use to register for events.
If I use the above method the best solution to this would be passing entity IDs around as strings
No reason. An entity in your C++ code is a pointer to an object on the heap. You can pass that pointer directly to Lua as userdata. Lua can pass that back to your C++ code and give you direct access to the object, rather than going through some object-to-ID mapping.
I'm not sure if my question makes any sense, but I certainly know it is near impossible to get the results from Google. Firstly, what I do not want. I don't want to call some function that prints "hello world" or adds two numbers together, I want to load a Lua script from a C++ program, but allow the script to modify variables of the C++ program, using functions. For example, imagine I have a C++ program like this:
class Foo
{
private:
int number = 0;
public:
void setNumber(const int& newNumber) {number = newNumber;}
}
int main()
{
Foo foo;
//Load and execute Lua script, with foo object
return 0;
}
How could I allow the Lua script to do foo.setNumber() (preferably without foo.)? This may be a very simple question, but as mentioned above, almost all information on Google when searching "Call C++ Function from Lua" assume there is no program, but just a .cpp/hpp file with some functions that you want to call.
I'm on Linux (Ubuntu), but the program needs to compile on all platforms (Windows and Mac)
This is asked here fairly regularly.
To roll your own binding you should:
Master Lua metatables completely.
Read the Programming in Lua stuff on the C API, particularly the part on classes. Alternatively you can read the manual, read the source (API headers especially), and do some googling, but the book will probably save you some time.
Broadly, you expose a C++ class instance to Lua by creating a Lua "userdata" containing a pointer to the class instance and passing this to the Lua script. A userdata is an opaque type; the Lua script can't actually do anything with it (other than pass it around) unless you give it a metatable. At the very least you must implement the __index metamethod on the userdata, which allows your C++ code to intercept attempts to index the userdata and return something meaningful, and the __gc metamethod, which allows your C++ code to delete the exposed C++ object when the corresponding Lua userdata is garbage collected.
For instance, you create a function called createFoo which creates a Foo instance, wraps the pointer as a userdata, applies a metatable implementing __index to it, and returns it to the Lua script.
When the user runs foo.setNumber, your C++ __index metamethod is called with the userdata and the string "setNumber". It's up to you what you return and this determines what foo.setNumber evaluates to in the Lua script. You want foo.setNumber to evaluate to a lua_CFunction which expects a Foo userdata as its first parameter, so that your class methods can be called idiomatically from Lua (i.e. foo:setNumber(12), which is syntax sugar for foo.setNumber(foo, 12)).
It's a very low level and manual process, and once you get the hang of it you're going to end up create a library/templates/macros whatever to do the boilerplate for you. At that point you may want to evaluate the myriad C++ binding libraries that exist. However, thanks to the Law of Leaky Abstractions it's a very good idea to learn to do this manually first.
I have a function which exposes all of my required C++ functions to Lua, there are various tables representing different aspects of my "Scripting API", what I wish to do is use doxygen to make a scripting reference using the C++ code that exposes these script functions.
I have tried to make 'fake' classes in the body of the function, which successfully makes a new entry with the name I have given it, for instance if I make a table named 'Math' which has several functions exposed on it, how would I also make 'fake' member functions in this 'fake' class, I have tried to simply pass in \fn defining the function, however it does not show up as they are not actually real members to add a description to. How would I create this sort of effect in doxygen without hand righting a verbatim definition of every class, but instead treat the comment block as if it were a real class with real members?
It sounds like you're trying to document Lua code as if they were C++. Maybe it's possible, but it's probably more trouble than it's worth.
If you're trying to document Lua code with doxygen, maybe you could try doxygen-lua.
If your Lua API is small, you could just write a page by hand, with \ref's to the relavent C++ code. (Kind of hacky, but I've done this before.)
You could also consider using some other doc generator for your Lua API, such as LuaDoc, or anything else listed on the lua-users wiki DocumentingLuaCode.
I ended up writing a fake .doxy file which had typenames similar to lua values, apparently doxygen will document any type to throw at it.
I'm exporting some c++ classes to Lua with SWIG. I have declared boost::filesystem::path in the SWIG interface file like this:
namespace boost
{
namespace filesystem
{
class path {};
}
}
Now I want to call a function declared in a lua script which should take a boost::filesystem::path& as parameter to pass it to another object. I only need to be able to pass the path to the object. I don't need to use any functionality from the path object.
function on_path_selected(the_path)
another_object:set_path(the_path)
end
I am going to call the Lua function from c++ using it's index.
lua_rawgeti(L, LUA_REGISTRYINDEX, m_function_index);
lua_push[SOMETHING](L, path_object); // <-- HOW TO ?
lua_pcall(L,1,0,0)
THE QUESTION: How to push a boost::filesystem::path as a parameter to the Lua function?
This is actually fairly complicated. The expected use of SWIG is to create modules for Lua. The Lua script should be the one deciding what gets called and what doesn't. It isn't really meant for embedded use, where you use SWIG to expose some C++ objects and then call Lua code directly from your application.
That's not to say that it's impossible, just complicated.
All SWIG-based C++ objects are passed through Lua as pointers. Thus ownership is a question; you can't just shove a pointer to a stack object into Lua.
The safest way to do this is to pass a new copy of the object to Lua. That way, Lua owns the pointer. SWIG will know that Lua owns the pointer, and will attach a proper garbage collection mechanism to it to clean it up. So everything should be fine, memory wise.
But doing this requires properly "boxing" (for want of a better term) that object the way that SWIG wants it done. This requires using certain SWIG macros.
Given how you have bound the path type to SWIG, you would do something like this to stick it onto a Lua stack:
swig_type_info *pathType = SWIG_TypeQuery("boost::filesystem::path *");
boost::filesystem::path *pArg = new boost::filesystem::path(the_path);
SWIG_NewPointerObj(L, pArg, pathType, 1);
SWIG_TypeQuery fetches the type of any object that has been bound by SWIG to Lua. This type info object is needed for SWIG_NewPointerObj, which takes a pointer to that type. Both of these are macros. SWIG_NewPointerObj gives Lua ownership of the pointer; Lua's garbage collector will delete it thanks to SWIG's metatables. Also SWIG_NewPointerObj pushes the object onto the lua_State stack.
Once it's on the stack, you can pretty much do whatever you want with it. Return it from a function to Lua, pass it to a Lua function as an argument, stick it in a global variable, etc. It's a Lua value.
Now, if you type this code into your project, odds are good that you'll get a compile error when the compiler sees swig_type_info. This type is defined internally within the source file generated by SWIG's command-line.
You have two options:
Put this source code into the .swig file itself. Yes, really. You can define regular C++ functions there, within verbatum sections (the %{ %} delimited blocks). These functions will be copied directly into SWIG's generated code. You can access them by putting prototypes in headers. This is the simplest and easiest way to work. This is often used for creating special interfaces, where a pre-existing C++ function isn't appropriate for a Lua API (or simply doesn't exist).
You can generate an appropriate header that contains these definitions with the -external-runtime argument. This has to be a different SWIG execution step from the step that generates the .cpp file. See, it doesn't actually process the SWIG file or anything. All it needs is the target language (-lua) and whether you're using C++ (-c++).So just have a command that does swig -c++ -lua -external-runtime someheader.h, and that's all you need to get the types and macros.
Include that header in whatever source you want to attach SWIG-bound objects to Lua in.
I had a script with:
Custom language used only for data
Was loaded using a Script class from C++
I had tags like Type, etc
An interface to get a value for a tag - Script::GetValue(Tag, T& value)
The script was used like this:
Script* script("someFile");
script->GetValue("Type", type);
Object* obj = CreateObject(type);
obj->Load(script);
Where Load functions from object was used to load the rest of obj parameters.
Now I changed the script language to lua. My questions is:
Should I keep this way of creating objects(use lua only for data) or should I expose the factory in lua and use it from lua, something like this(in lua):
CreateObject("someType")
SetProperty(someObj, someProperty, someValue)
First of all I want to know which is faster, first or second approach. Do you have other suggestions? Because I'm refactoring this part I'm open to other suggestions. I want to keep lua because is fast, easy to integrate, and small.
You may allow your script environment to create C++ objects or not, depending on your needs.
tolua++ uses all the metatable features to allow a very straightforward manipulation of your c++ types in lua.
For example, this declaration :
// tolua_begin
class SomeCppClass
{
public:
SomeCppClass();
~SomeCppClass();
int some_field;
void some_method();
};
// tolua_end
Will automatically generate the lua bindings to allow this lua scipt :
#!lua
-- obj1 must be deleted manually
local obj1 = SomeCppClass:new()
-- obj1 will be automatically garbage collected
local obj2 = SomeCppClass:new_local()
obj1.some_field = 3 -- direct access to "some_field"
obj2:some_method() -- direct call to "some_method"
obj1:delete()
The advantage of this technique is that your lua code will ve very consistent with the relying C++ code. See http://www.codenix.com/~tolua/tolua++.html
In situations like that, I prefer to setup a bound C function that takes a table of parameters as an argument. So, the Lua script would look like the following.
CreateObject{
Type = "someType"'
someProperty = someValue,
-- ...
}
This table would be on top of the stack in the callback function, and all parameters can be accessed by name using lua_getfield.
You may also want to investigate sandboxing your Lua environment.
The first approach would most likely be faster, but the second approach would probably result in less object initialization code (assuming you're initializing a lot of objects). If you choose the first approach, you can do it manually. If you choose the second approach you might want to use a binding library like Luabind to avoid errors and speed up implementation time, assuming you're doing this for multiple object types and data types.
The simplest approach will probably be to just use Lua for data; if you want to expose the factory and use it via Lua, make sure it's worth the effort first.