getPoints pushes values onto stack

[kaishaku]

It might be good to document that getPoints does not return a table.

If this is a common convention in the Love API perhaps an explicit technique would be better.

[rude]

Yes, this allows you to pass the values directly to love.graphics.polygon.

[BlackNecro]

Wouldn't a table be easier to handle and if you would want to pass it to the polygon function just use love.graphics.polygon(drawtype,unpack(pointtable))?

[rude]

Well ... I guess, if enough people think so.

My reasoning was that it would be much slower to construct a table and unpacking it again before sending it to love.graphics.polygon. You can still pack the values:

Code: Select all

t = { p:getPoints() }

We could add p:getPointsTable(), and enjoy BOTH variants.

[kaishaku]

EDIT: Removed. Didn't pay attention to previous code:

Code: Select all

t = { p:getPoints() }

This is good. Maybe the name "getPoints" is a problem though, particularly if there are more like this.

For the record, an array userdata may be a solution for future table<->array interop dilemmas.
The book uses exactly that for its userdata examples: http://www.lua.org/pil/28.1.html