I pass a variable in preprocess_page to the template files, so I think.
$vars['merk']=$merk;
It works fine when I call the variable in page.tpl.php . But when I call that variable in commerce-product-title.tpl.php it does not load, it returns null. I cannot find how to pass that variable to this tpl.php file.
Presuming that template is only used when displaying a product, which is a different entity to a page.
Try altering the vars in the product hook instead:
function hook_preprocess_commerce_product(&$vars) {
$vars['merk']=$merk;
}
I'm pretty new to lua scripting, but want to incorporate scripting into my game engine. Currently I have lua linked up to c++ in a basic manner where I can call methods from c++ classes and vise-versa. Lua scripts are setup as components and you can essentially attach scripts to a game object. However, I'm having an issue where my variables are being reset each time a script is called. Here is a basic example of a script:
--lua script--
input = InputManager()
function initalize()
end
function update()
if(input:KeyDown(KEY_SPACE)) then
print("Random before: ", input.random)
input.random = input.random + 10
print("Random after: ", input.random)
end
end
Initialize is called when the script component is attached and update is called every frame. In this example, in my c++ InputManager class that I bind up to lua, I have a integer random that is initialized to 5. I'm using lunafive properties to control the getting and setting of variables.
When I hit space i expect the first iteration to print out:
Random before: 5
Random after: 15
And then the next iteration:
Random before: 15
Random after: 25
However, every iteration I get that first result of 5 and 15. I realize this is because I'm loading the script each update method so it is probably just creating a new instance of InputManager.
How do I go about creating an instance of an object (i.e InputManager) and maintain that same instance every time I call update.
That way I could do something like this:
input = nil
function initalize()
input = InputManager()
end
function update()
print(input.random)
end
and not have an undefined instance of input once update is called. Hopefully this all makes sense, if not I can clarify! Any help is much appreciated!
Suppose I have a code in Java (or any other language) that I want to test. Let's say that I want to test how the code behaves when variable 'myVar' holds an integer value of 10 at a certain line.
One option will be to assign the value 10 to variable 'myVar' at this line. This will work fine, but it will make the code dirty. If I want to test another scenario, I'll have to fix this line. What will happen if I have a huge number of scenarios ?
I was wondering whether there is an option to hold an external file/configuration that will be loaded whenever I want to test this specific scenario without modifying the code?
One of the ways is to use a Json File. Just put your value into the Json file "test.json" at location c:\testfolder with following content:
{
"Scenario":"10"
}
Now you can access the value using following code in C#:
StreamReader file = File.OpenText("c:\testfolder\test.json");
JsonTextReader reader = new JsonTextReader(file);
JObject jObject = (JObject)JToken.ReadFrom(reader);
int a = jObject ["Scenario"];
You can use this variable a which contains value 10 from the Json file.
I need to call a function of an object and pass it a variable. Because I need to make multiple call to function of this object I've tried to make one only handler that invoke the specific function by the form value I pass it. The code works, but CFBuilder show me that there is an error (missing semicolon on the last row). I'm on Railo.
local.myReport = seoUtility.init();
local.func = form.action;
local.report = local.myReport[local.func](form.user);
So the question is: this code is correct? I could simply ignore the cfbuilder error icon?
If you don't want CFBuilder to nag you about the syntax, you can change to this:
local.myReport = seoUtility.init();
local.func = local.myReport[form.action];
local.myReport.func = local.func;
local.report = local.myReport.func(form.user);
This sets local.func to the instance of seoUtility as a reference to the actual function you want to call, preserving its relationship to the parent object. This way the offending []() syntax isn't needed.
However, this only works if seoUtility.init() is returning a fresh instance every time, as opposed to a singleton shared by the application, in which case there would be a race condition on all calls to local.myReport.func().
My current problem is that I have several enemies share the same A.I. script, and one other object that does something different. The function in the script is called AILogic. I want these enemies to move independently, but this is proving to be an issue. Here is what I've tried.
1) Calling dofile in the enemy's constructor, and then calling its script function in its Update function which happens in every game loop. The problem with this is that Lua just uses the script of the last enemy constructed, so all of the enemies are running the same script in the Update function. Thus, the object I described above that doesn't use the same script for it's A.I. is using the other enemies' script.
2) Calling dofile in the Update function, and then calling its script function immediately after. The problem with this is that dofile is called in every object's update function, so after the AILogic function runs and data for that script is updated, the whole thing just gets reset when dofile is called again for another enemy. My biggest question here is whether there is some way to retain the values in the script, even when I switch to running a different one.
I've read about function environments in Lua, but I'm not quite sure how to implement them correctly. Is this the right direction? Any advice is appreciated, thanks.
Edit: I've also considered creating a separate place to store that data rather than doing it in the Lua script.
Edit2: Added some sample code. (Just a test to get the functionality working).
-- Slime's Script
local count = 0;
function AILogic( Slime )
--Make the slime move in circles(err a square)
if count < 4 then
Slime:MoveDir( 0 );
elseif count < 8 then
Slime:MoveDir( 2 );
elseif count < 12 then
Slime:MoveDir( 1 );
elseif count < 16 then
Slime:MoveDir( 3 );
else
count = 0;
end
count = count + 1;
end
The lua interpreter runs each line as its own chunk which means that locals have line scope, so the example code can't be run as-is. It either needs to be run all at once (no line breaks), without locals, or run in a do ... end block.
As to the question in the OP. If you want to share the exact same function (that is the same function at runtime) then the function needs to take the data as arguments. If, however, you are ok with using the same code but different (runtime) functions than you can use closures to hold the local/individual data.
local function make_counter()
local count = 0
return function ()
local c = count
count = count + 1
return c
end
end
c1 = make_counter()
c2 = make_counter()
c3 = make_counter()
print(c1())
print(c1())
print(c1())
print(c1())
print(c2())
print(c3())
print(c2())
print(c3())
print(c2())
print(c3())
Alternatively, you could play with the environment of the function each time it is called, but that will only work correctly for some cases (depends on what the internals of the function are).
The canonical reference for this is link text. Explaining this briefly we'll work off the following code from the site:
a = 1
local newgt = {} -- create new environment
setmetatable(newgt, {__index = _G})
setfenv(1, newgt) -- set it
The first line sets up the (global) variable "a". You can view this as setting default values for your code. (Keep in mind that in Lua all variables are global unless you declare them with "local".)
The next line creates a table that will be your new environment. It is local to the function/chunk you're executing in so it won't be trashed by anything else that runs now or later.
The third line is the beginnings of the magic. To understand it you're going to have to understand metamethods In essence, however, you're using Lua's metamagic to ensure that any global names that aren't defined in your soon-to-be function environment get resolved in the context of your old global environment. Basically it means if you use a name that's not in your function environment, Lua will automagically hunt in the global environment you used to have to find the name. (In a word: inheritance.)
The fourth line is where you get what you're looking for. Setfenv(1,...) means that this changes the environment for your current function. (You could use 2 for the calling function, 3 for the calling function's caller, etc. on up the line.) The second parameter is the table you just set up, complete with inheritance of the old behaviour. Your function is now executing in a new global environment. It has all the names and values of the old environment handy (including functions and that global variable "a" you put in). If, however, you WRITE to a name it will not overwrite the global state. It will overwrite your local copy of it.
Consider the following subsequent code:
a = 10
b = 20
What you have done now is made your function environment table look like this:
{a = 10, b=20}
Your "global" environment, in short, contains two variables only: a (value 10) and b (value 20). When you access "a" later you'll get your local copy with 10 -- the old global value stored in your metatable is shadowed now and is still set to 1 -- and if you access "b" you'll get 20, despite the original global state likely not even having a variable "b" to access. And you'll still be able to access all the functions, etc. you've defined before this point as well.
Edited to add test code to debug OP's problem.
I put the following code into "junk.lua":
a = 1
local newgt = {}
setmetatable(newgt, {__index = _G})
setfenv(1, newgt)
print(a)
a = 10
print(a)
print(newgt)
The output of it is as follows:
$ lua junk.lua
1
10
table: 0x976d040
This is using Lua 5.1.4. What is the output you're seeing?