Re: Replacement for unlocked refs?

["J. Perkins" <jason@...>]

Ugh. If this is the only way to do it, I'll probably add a
table of weak keys and rewrite luaL_ref/luaL_unref to use
it. Sure feels like a big hack.

If you'll accept my $0.02, the current implementation of
ref/unref seems a big hack. The ability to associate C and
script objects is an awfully important feature for an
embedded language, but the current method (indices into
the registry) seems an afterthought. At the very least, a
dedicated table should be set aside for refs, freeing the
registry for application use, and support re-added for
unlocked refs.

All IMO, of course. I realize that this probably isn't a
big deal for people who only call C code from Lua, and
rarely Lua code from C.

Jason



it would seem that the ability
to associate C and Lua objects would be an important
function that should be built into the language,

Okay, I can do this but it seems a bit like a hack.


Actually
I will probably add a table of weak keys to Lua and hide it behind
the luaL_ref/luaL_unref methods. This really does seem like 
something that should be built into the language -- Lua being an
embedded language and all -- and not something hacked onto the
registry table, which I thought was supposed to be reserved for
my application's use.



Diego Nehab wrote:

> > I just discovered that unlocked refs are no longer supported
> > in the work3 release. I was using them to allow C++ objects to
> > keep track of the table which represented them in Lua. What's
> > the workaround to allow this in work3?
>
> You can  have, for instance, a  locked reference  to a  table associating
> your objects userdata with the corresponding object tables. Then set the
> mode of this table to  weak keys so that  when your userdata is  collected,
> the whole pair is removed  automatically from the table and  associated
> object table will also be collected.