[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Distributed Lua
- From: teppy <teppy@...>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:43:00 -0500
> Sorry to sound discouraging, but aren't you trying to go the hard way?
> What considerations lead you to decision to change Lua itself? I
> believe you'll lose much more than you gain (starting from LuaJIT
> Why not, say, wrap access to "shared" tables into some API calls (if
> needed, it may be made transparent by implementing a clever metatable
> over a global environment)? Such API may call yield as needed then (if
> you put into a metatable, you'll need to employ one of
> cross-metamethod yielding libraries).
It's probably doable, but I think it leads to awkward code:
1. The script programmers would then have to keep track of which
tables are foreign vs. local.
2. Code becomes bulky (and maybe slow):
3. I investigated the metamethod idea - there's no way to define a
metamethod for changing an existing key, as in the above example. (Right?)
4. Tables can point to other tables to form complex data structures.
Without a global ID for each table, knowing which tables to send to
connected players becomes a nightmare. Requiring programmers to always
initialize this for each table is error prone, and interferes with
garbage collection because now an "empty" table isn't really empty.