Hey
I've got a question about tables.
I've got a tableA with 10 objects inside it. But these object come and go constantly (table.insert & table.remove)
When you remove ex: object 5, objects 6 till 10 lower one index so the index of object 10 shifts from 10 to 9.
So far no problem.
But i've other tableB with references to the index in tableA... so when object 5 is remove in tableA and there is a reference to object 10 in table A it will point to a none existing value because 10 is now 9.
Is there a way to catch this shift? Either by stopping the shift or by updating the references. But both solutions aren't ideal in my opinion. Are there other solutions?
I'm thinking about having a global variable to keep track of number object EVER created and adding this number as an extra attribute and use it as an alternative index to reference to.
Table & Indexes
Forum rules
Before you make a thread asking for help, read this.
Before you make a thread asking for help, read this.
- kikito
- Inner party member
- Posts: 3153
- Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:22 pm
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact:
Re: Table & Indexes
Do you really need to store indexes in TableB ?
Why don't you store references to the objects themselves?
Now you can use TableB.a and TableB.b to reference the 'a' and 'b' values, even when they are removed from TableA.
Why don't you store references to the objects themselves?
Code: Select all
TableA = {'a','b','c','d'}
TableB = {a=TableA[0], b=TableA[1]}
When I write def I mean function.
Re: Table & Indexes
Except that this code is *copying* the values, not referencing.
Your example will only work (as references) if the elements of TableA are themselves tables.
Your example will only work (as references) if the elements of TableA are themselves tables.
- bartbes
- Sex machine
- Posts: 4946
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:35 am
- Location: The Netherlands
- Contact:
Re: Table & Indexes
Lua NEVER copies a table, always uses references.
Re: Table & Indexes
Doesn't a Lua table starts to count by 1 instead of 0?kikito wrote:Do you really need to store indexes in TableB ?
Why don't you store references to the objects themselves?
Now you can use TableB.a and TableB.b to reference the 'a' and 'b' values, even when they are removed from TableA.Code: Select all
TableA = {'a','b','c','d'} TableB = {a=TableA[0], b=TableA[1]}
TableA = {'obj1','obj2','obj3','obj4'}
TableB = {a=TableA[1], b=TableA[2]}
So when i do table.remove(Table1, 2) obj2 get's removed from tableA and this remains -> TableA = {'obj1','obj3','obj4'}
What will happen to the references in tableB?
TableB => nil (because it was removed)
TableB => obj3 (because the table has filled up the gap? And shifted the tableindexes)
Hopefully for me the answer will be nil.
I would have tested it myself but I'm currently not working on a pc with Love installed
Thanks for all the answers.
- kikito
- Inner party member
- Posts: 3153
- Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:22 pm
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Contact:
Re: Table & Indexes
Mm.. probably. I try to avoid using integers on my tables as much as I can. When I do, I create the tables inline (t={a,b,c}) and then parse them with ipairs(t) ... so I never have to track 0s and 1s!Doesn't a Lua table starts to count by 1 instead of 0?
Code: Select all
TableB[b] => nil (because it was removed)
TableB[b] => obj3 (because the table has filled up the gap? And shifted the tableindexes)
I believe TableB.b will return obj2, even if obj2 was removed from TableA. We are storing a reference to the object, not to its index (and as someone has mentioned, in some case we store a copy of the object - like with strings and integuers).
For it to work the way you want, you would have to store integers on TableB, and obtain objects by using those integers on TableA. Then, it also depends on how you remove elements from TableA:
Code: Select all
TableA = {'obj1','obj2','obj3','obj4'}
TableB = {a=1, b=2} -- storing indices on TableB
TableA[TableB.a] -- returns 'obj1'
table.remove(TableA,1) -- removes obj1 from TableA, "shifting" all other objects to the left
TableA[TableB.a] -- returns 'obj2'
TableA[1] = nil -- removes obj2 from TableA, but just making it nil (not recommended, because ipairs will stop working)
TableA[TableB.a] -- returns nil
When I write def I mean function.
Re: Table & Indexes
Thanks for correcting and helping me out.
I think I'll figure out a way now.
I think I'll figure out a way now.
- bartbes
- Sex machine
- Posts: 4946
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:35 am
- Location: The Netherlands
- Contact:
Re: Table & Indexes
Simply put you never have a real table anywhere, only references to the memory assigned by lua, so, when you unset one reference the other reference is not empty, only when all references are gone lua will destroy the object.
Furthermore, the statement that this isn't the case for strings is incorrect, it should (haven't tried it, but it has been written that this is the case) point to the same internal string object. So
would mean that both a and b are a reference to the same data.
Furthermore, the statement that this isn't the case for strings is incorrect, it should (haven't tried it, but it has been written that this is the case) point to the same internal string object. So
Code: Select all
a = "something"
b = "something"
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests