 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
It was thus said that the Great Eduardo Ochs once stated:
> 2) Here is the idea; the question is below.
>
> The functions debug.getinfo, debug.getlocal and debug.setlocal are
> usually called with an integer argument that the manual refers to
> as "level", that is processed like this (I took the code from
> db_getinfo, in ldblib.c) to set the variable "ar" to an "activation
> record":
To get this thread back on track (sorry about that), I've given this some
thought, and I think this is the best approach to what you want. Somewhere,
you want to add:
#define TYPE_LUA_DEBUG "lua_Debug"
luaL_newmetatable(L,TYPE_LUA_DEBUG);
/* add metamethods as you see fit */
Then:
static int mygetstack(lua_State *L)
{
lua_Debug *par;
int level = luaL_checkinteger(L,1);
par = lua_newuserdata(L,sizeof(lua_Debug));
if (!lua_getstack(L,level,par))
return 0;
luaL_getmetatable(L,TYPE_LUA_DEBUG);
lua_setmetatable(L,-2);
return 1;
}
This returns a userdata of type lua_Debug. Lua will track the memory for
you, so there's no leaking. Then, in the appropriate locations where you
take a level number, or a function, you can instead check for a userdata of
type TYPE_LUA_DEBUG, and then pass that to the appropriate Lua API call:
lua_Debug *par = luaL_checkudata(L,idx,TYPE_LUA_DEBUG);
If you want a pretty representation to print out, add a __tostring
metamethod to the metatable---something like:
static int myluadebug___tostring(lua_State *L)
{
lua_pushfstring(L,"activation record: %p",lua_touserdata(L,1)); /* [1] */
return 1;
}
That's really all you need I would think.
-spc
[1] Why not luaL_checkudata()? The only way this can fail is
intentional user intervention (as the only way to this function is
via the metatable of the lua_Debug userdata we're using), but if
that is a concern, then yes, use luaL_checkudata() here.