I've been to the end of Google and back trying to solve this problem.
I have a few userdata objects that I push from C++ to Lua.
I have a function that should get the X value of either a 2D or 3D object.
When I try to get the userdata object, taking into consideration that it could be either a 2D element or 3D object, I need to be able to get the X for whichever the user chooses.
Here is what I tried:
int getX(lua_State* L)
{
Object3D* a = static_cast<Object3D*>(luaL_checkudata(L, 1, "Object3D"));
if (!a)
{
Object2D* b = static_cast<Object2D*>(luaL_checkudata(L, 1, "Object2D"));
if (b)
{
lua_pushnumber(L, b:getX());
}
else
{
lua_pushnil(L);
}
}
else
{
lua_pushnumber(L, a:getX());
}
return 1;
}
Unfortunately if the userdata type is not Object3D, it fails and exits on an lua error without continuing to try Object2D.
Therefore, it will only work in the above code if the object being passed is of type Object3D.
luaL_testudata
void *luaL_testudata (lua_State *L, int arg, const char *tname);
This function works like luaL_checkudata, except that, when the test fails, it returns NULL instead of raising an error.
The lua(L)_check* functions throw Lua errors on failure, the lua(L)_to* functions return NULL. For whatever reason, this one deviates from the naming convention and is named lua(L)_test* instead, which makes it a bit harder to find.
Your code is incomplete and doesn't compile as-is so I can't be bothered to check, but if I'm not mistaken, just replacing luaL_checkudata with luaL_testudata should make it work as intended.
Solved by using rawequal to see which class the registry matches.
Related
I have a function which processes data that comes as a sequence. Because of this, I need to know the value of certain variables from the last function call during the current function call.
My current approach to doing this is to use static variables. My function goes something like this:
bool processData(Object message){
static int lastVar1 = -1;
int curVar1 = message.var1;
if (curVar1 > lastVar1){
// Do something
}
lastVar1 = curVar1;
}
This is just a small sample of the code; in reality I have 10+ static variables tracking different things. My gut tells me using so many static variables probably isn't a good idea, though I have nothing to back that feeling up.
My question: Is there a better way to do this?
An alternative I've been looking into is using an object whose fields are lastVar1, lastVar2, etc. However, I'm not sure if keeping an object in memory would be more efficient than using static variables.
Your question has a taste of being purely about style and opinions, though there are aspects that are not a matter of opinion: multithreading and testing.
Consider this:
bool foo(int x) {
static last_val = -1;
bool result = (x == last_val);
last_val = x;
return result;
}
You can call this function concurrently from multiple threads but it wont do the expected. Moreover you can only test the function by asserting that it does the right thing:
foo(1);
assert( foo(1) ); // silenty assumes that the last call did the right thing
To setup the preconditions for the test (first line) you already have to assume that foo(1) does the right thing, which somehow defeats the purpose of testing that call in the second line.
If the methods need the current object and the previous object, simply pass both:
bool processData(const Object& message,const Object& previous_message){
if (message.var1 > previous_message.var1){
// Do something
return true;
}
return false;
}
Of course this just shifts the issue of keeping track of the previous message to the caller, though thats straight-forward and requires not messing around with statics:
Object message, old_message;
while ( get_more( message )) {
processData(message, old_message);
old_message = message;
}
I often use -1 as the invalid value type when returning from a function, where the input yields incorrect output. For instance, writing an indexing function where the index is out of bounds, instead of throwing an exception, -1 can be returned. But when writing a function that has negative values as possible return types, this technique does not work. What is the correct way to return an invalid type value in such instances?
The technique I use mostly is to set the return type to be of type *int, and return a Pointer to NULL. But, that requires all return values to be of a pointer type, which seems like an extra overhead to the function. Is there an accepted standard for returning values in such cases?
In newer C++, I'd suggest using std::optional<>; if you don't yet have it, boost::optional<>.
One option would be to let your function take a bool& as an output parameter used to indicate if the returned value is valid.
int myFunc(bool& valid); // sets 'valid' to true if result is usable, false otherwise
Users can then do
bool valid = false;
Int result = myFunc(valid);
if (!valid) {
// Handle error
}
// Use result
Not the most pretty solution, but it does the job.
Apart from the answer I provided above, there's a very clean, continuation-passing solution (given you're non-virtual):
template<typename Success, typename Failed>
void parse( const std::string& str, Success s, Failed f )
{
auto a = start_parse(str);
if( a.problem() )
return f(); // you _might_ have an error code here
s( finish_parse(str, a) );
}
Then you might customize by:
Success:
[&i] (int i_) { i = i_; }
out(i), where out(int& output_) returns the above lambda for output_
actual code doing something useful
function to continue with
Failed:
[&i]{ i = 0; }, `[&i]{ i = nullopt; }, or any other default value
[] { throw MyFavouriteException(); }
retry logic
std::terminate()
[]{} if you don't care (or if you're 100% sure it'll succeed)
It might look a little verbose, but IMHO:
it's trivial to read
any other schematics can be mimicked, even if there's no default c'tor
easy to change as well
'you don't pay for what you don't use', can surely be optimized away
every schematic is visible and apparent from code:
for default value, caller sets it, not callee or global
std::optional<> and default value are handled the same
for exception, caller knows better what to throw
for no action, you don't have to lookup the implementation to know this
for std::terminate(), well, you know what to expect
if you 'speak' CPS, you might actually continue and save an if / catch / etc.
The only issue I see is constructor initializer lists. Any thoughts on this?
I know the basics of interacting with lua and C, and I am currently trying to perform the following line of lua in c++
Func1():Func2().Table1.value1
I am trying to get the value of "value2" and use it in my C program. The following is the code I wrote to attempt to get this value in C.
int GetNumber()
{
int retn = 0;
g_clientlua.lua_getfield(LUA_REGISTRYINDEX, "Player");
g_clientlua.lua_getfield(-1, "Func2");
g_clientlua.lua_getfield(LUA_GLOBALSINDEX, "Func1");
g_clientlua.lua_call(0, 1);
g_clientlua.lua_call(1, 1);
if (g_clientlua.lua_isnil(-1))
return retn;
g_clientlua.lua_getfield(-1, "Table1");
if (g_clientlua.lua_isnil(-1))
return retn;
g_clientlua.lua_getfield(-1, "value1");
if (g_clientlua.lua_isnil(-1))
return retn;
retn = (int)g_clientlua.lua_tointeger(-1);
}
The clientlua thing is an object that basically just allows me to call a method which calls it's lua_* function equivalent and fills the lua_state pointer parameter with a member variable that is a pointer to the lua state.
Every time I call this, it complains about me causing a lua stack leak. To solve this, I tried adding a lua_pop(3) to the end, but then it just crashes my program without reporting an error, so I assume I am doing something wrong.
Anyone have any words of wisdom for me? Kinda lost here. I doubt the above code is even written properly, how would I write the above lua call in C?
You need to call Func1 before you try to get Func2 as Func2 comes from the table that Func1 returns (and not from the global table).
Then you need to call Func2 and look up Table1 in that returned value, etc.
What "stack leak" complaint are you getting? If you are calling this function from C directly then yes, you need to be sure that anything you put on the lua stack (that isn't for consumption by the caller, etc.) is popped from the lua stack before you return.
The GetNumber function isn't doing exactly the same as the lua snippet you're going for. Specifically GetNumber is getting the value of "Func2" from the registry while your lua snippet is getting the value of "Func2" from the table returned by Func1(). Unless you're certain that registry.Player.Func2 == Func1().Func2 is always true, your C++ version will not have the same behavior.
Let's break down Func1():Func2().Table1.value1 into more explicit steps to help with the C translation:
Get function associated with _G.Func1
Call that function and get a table back
Get function associated with "Func2" from the returned table in step 2
Call that function and pass as argument the table from step 2. Get another table back as result
I found it helpful to track what the stack contains as a side-comment as the operations are performed:
int GetNumber()
{
// Func1()
gclientlua.lua_getfield(LUA_GLOBALSINDEX, "Func1"); // Func1
g_clientlua.lua_call(0, 1); // {}
// Func2( {} )
g_clientlua.lua_getfield(-1, "Func2"); // {}, Func2
g_clientlua.lua_insert(-2); // Func2, {}
g_clientlua.lua_call(1, 1); // {}
if( g_clientlua.lua_type(-1) != LUA_TTABLE )
{
g_clientlua.lua_pop(1);
return 0;
}
// {}.Table1
g_clientlua.lua_getfield(-1, "Table1"); // {}, {}(Table1)
if( g_clientlua.lua_type(-1) != LUA_TTABLE )
{
g_clientlua.lua_pop(2);
return 0;
}
// tonumber( Table1.value1 )
g_clientlua.lua_getfield(-1, "value1"); // {}, {}(Table1), value1
int retn = g_clientlua.lua_tointeger(-1);
g_clientlua.lua_pop(3);
return retn;
}
Notice that GetNumber pops off all the arguments it places on the stack before returning. This ensures that GetNumber leaves the lua stack the way it was found. This can probably be automated with RAII if you're using C++.
I'm using luabind 0.9.1 from Ryan Pavlik's master distribution with Lua 5.1, cygwin on Win XP SP3 + latest patches x86, boost 1.48, gcc 4.3.4. Lua and boost are cygwin pre-compiled versions.
I've successfully built luabind in both static and shared versions.
Both versions pass all the tests EXCEPT for the test_object_identity.cpp test which fails in both versions.
I've tracked down the problem to the following issue:
If an entry in a table is created for NON built-in class (i.e., not int, string, etc), the value CANNOT be retrieved.
Here's a code piece that demonstrates this:
#include "test.hpp"
#include <luabind/luabind.hpp>
#include <luabind/detail/debug.hpp>
using namespace luabind;
struct test_param
{
int obj;
};
void test_main(lua_State* L)
{
using namespace luabind;
module(L)
[
class_<test_param>("test_param")
.def_readwrite("obj", &test_param::obj)
];
test_param temp_object;
object tabc = newtable(L);
tabc[1] = 10;
tabc[temp_object] = 30;
TEST_CHECK( tabc[1] == 10 ); // passes
TEST_CHECK( tabc[temp_object] == 30 ); // FAILS!!!
}
tabc[1] is indeed 10 while tabc[temp_object] is NOT 30! (actually, it seems to be nil)
However, if I use iterate to go over tabc entries, there're the two entries with the CORRECT key/value pairs.
Any ideas?
BTW, overloading the == operator like this:
#include <luabind/operator.hpp>
struct test_param
{
int obj;
bool operator==(test_param const& rhs) const
{
return obj == rhs.obj;
}
};
and
module(L)
[
class_<test_param>("test_param")
.def_readwrite("obj", &test_param::obj)
.def(const_self == const_self)
];
Doesn't change the result.
I also tried switching to settable() and gettable() from the [] operator. The result is the same. I can see with the debugger that default conversion of the key is invoked, so I guess the error arises from somewhere therein, but it's beyond me to figure out what exactly the problem is.
As the following simple test case show, there're definitely a bug in Luabind's conversion for complex types:
struct test_param : wrap_base
{
int obj;
bool operator==(test_param const& rhs) const
{ return obj == rhs.obj ; }
};
void test_main(lua_State* L)
{
using namespace luabind;
module(L)
[
class_<test_param>("test_param")
.def(constructor<>())
.def_readwrite("obj", &test_param::obj)
.def(const_self == const_self)
];
object tabc, zzk, zzv;
test_param tp, tp1;
tp.obj = 123456;
// create new table
tabc = newtable(L);
// set tabc[tp] = 5;
// o k v
settable( tabc, tp, 5);
// get access to entry through iterator() API
iterator zzi(tabc);
// get the key object
zzk = zzi.key();
// read back the value through gettable() API
// o k
zzv = gettable(tabc, zzk);
// check the entry has the same value
// irrespective of access method
TEST_CHECK ( *zzi == 5 &&
object_cast<int>(zzv) == 5 );
// convert key to its REAL type (test_param)
tp1 = object_cast<test_param>(zzk);
// check two keys are the same
TEST_CHECK( tp == tp1 );
// read the value back from table using REAL key type
zzv = gettable(tabc, tp1);
// check the value
TEST_CHECK( object_cast<int>(zzv) == 5 );
// the previous call FAILS with
// Terminated with exception: "unable to make cast"
// this is because gettable() doesn't return
// a TRUE value, but nil instead
}
Hopefully, someone smarter than me can figure this out,
Thx
I've traced the problem to the fact that Luabind creates a NEW DISTINCT object EVERY time you use a complex value as key (but it does NOT if you use a primitive one or an object).
Here's a small test case that demonstrates this:
struct test_param : wrap_base
{
int obj;
bool operator==(test_param const& rhs) const
{ return obj == rhs.obj ; }
};
void test_main(lua_State* L)
{
using namespace luabind;
module(L)
[
class_<test_param>("test_param")
.def(constructor<>())
.def_readwrite("obj", &test_param::obj)
.def(const_self == const_self)
];
object tabc, zzk, zzv;
test_param tp;
tp.obj = 123456;
tabc = newtable(L);
// o k v
settable( tabc, tp, 5);
iterator zzi(tabc), end;
std::cerr << "value = " << *zzi << "\n";
zzk = zzi.key();
// o k v
settable( tabc, tp, 6);
settable( tabc, zzk, 7);
for (zzi = iterator(tabc); zzi != end; ++zzi)
{
std::cerr << "value = " << *zzi << "\n";
}
}
Notice how tabc[tp] first has the value 5 and then is overwritten with 7 when accessed through the key object. However, when accessed AGAIN through tp, a new entry gets created. This is why gettable() fails subsequently.
Thx,
David
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on luabind. It's entirely possible I've missed something about luabind's capabilities.
First of all, what is luabind doing when converting test_param to a Lua key? The default policy is copy. To quote the luabind documentation:
This will make a copy of the parameter. This is the default behavior when passing parameters by-value. Note that this can only be used when passing from C++ to Lua. This policy requires that the parameter type has an accessible copy constructor.
In pratice, what this means is that luabind will create a new object (called "full userdata") which is owned by the Lua garbage collector and will copy your struct into it. This is a very safe thing to do because it no longer matters what you do with the c++ object; the Lua object will stick around without really any overhead. This is a good way to do bindings for by-value sorts of objects.
Why does luabind create a new object each time you pass it to Lua? Well, what else could it do? It doesn't matter if the address of the passed object is the same, because the original c++ object could have changed or been destroyed since it was first passed to Lua. (Remember, it was copied to Lua by value, not by reference.) So, with only ==, luabind would have to maintain a list of every object of that type which had ever been passed to Lua (possibly weakly) and compare your object against each one to see if it matches. luabind doesn't do this (nor do I think should it).
Now, let's look at the Lua side. Even though luabind creates two different objects, they're still equal, right? Well, the first problem is that, besides certain built-in types, Lua can only hold objects by reference. Each of those "full userdata" that I mentioned before is actually a pointer. That means that they are not identical.
But they are equal, if we define an __eq meta operation. Unfortunately, Lua itself simply does not support this case. Userdata when used as table keys are always compared by identity, no matter what. This actually isn't special for userdata; it is also true for tables. (Note that to properly support this case, Lua would need to override the hashcode operation on the object in addition to __eq. Lua also does not support overriding the hashcode operation.) I can't speak for the authors of Lua why they did not allow this (and it has been suggested before), but there it is.
So, what are the options?
The simplest thing would be to convert test_param to an object once (explicitly), and then use that object to index the table both times. However, I suspect that while this fixes your toy example, it isn't very helpful in practice.
Another option is simply not to use such types as keys. Actually, I think this is a very good suggestion, since this kind of light-weight binding is quite useful, and the only other option is to discard it.
It looks like you can define a custom conversion on your type. In your example, it might be reasonable to convert your type to a Lua number which will behave well as a table index.
Use a different kind of binding. There will be some overhead, but if you want identity, you'll have to live with it. It sounds like luabind has some support for wrappers, which you may need to use to preserve identity:
When a pointer or reference to a registered class with a wrapper is passed to Lua, luabind will query for it's dynamic type. If the dynamic type inherits from wrap_base, object identity is preserved.
I am developing a library of some utility functions in C++. I have a doubt regarding the function signatures in that library. If a function takes some parameters and returns a value, should the variable into which the result of that function is stored also be passed as a parameter to that function? How should I handle the error conditions and return values for errors?
For C++ you should return the result and handle errors with exceptions.
int calc_with_error() {
throw yourExceptionClass("Message");
}
int calc() {
return 5;
}
int main() {
int tmp=calc();
cout << calc;
}
But the result then is copied from the function to the calling context. With primitive datatypes this is the fastest possible way. But when you have complex datastructures, it can be faster to pass a reference to a result parameter - although it's not as clean code as the solution above, An example would be:
void calc(vector<int> &result) {
result.clean();
result.add(5);
}
int main() {
vector<int> tmp;
calc(tmp);
//Do something with the vector
}
There are several options, and it's largely a matter of preference.
One thing you should do is, in most cases, keep outputs and errors separate.
It's usually good to return success/error as the return value, and return data in an output parameter, passed by reference.
Don't do these:
1. Use "magic values" as an error indication.
2. Use global variables to return the data.
People often tell me to not return error values, because this is not the very best practice. The best is to you throw exceptions, this is best handled than error codes. Also, output parameters are good, I use them most for big data, for simple returns, the return value should be of good use.
To show you, of course, this is not so good in design:
void checkSomething(bool& output)
{
output = doCheckages();
}
that is much better
bool checkSomething()
{
return doCheckages();
}
but if youre handling a large class/structure, and you know that you dont want to have lots of instance of it, may be better to pass it as a output param.