Unable to compare two tables using metatables.

[quevigil]

Hi,

I'm trying to learn programming by coding a simple puzzle game in LOVE. Right now there are no controls. Anyway, I'm trying to use .png files to create a map by using color codes to denote different parts of the map. While doing so I realized I could use metatables to simplify color equalities by comparing {r,g,b,a} tables at every pixel on the map, which I would later use to draw the appropriate tiles.

I wrote a metamethod for the equality operator which I translated into python to test for validity.(attachment: equalityTesting.txt)

Unfortunately, the equality operator seems to not be working. It never returns true, hence drawing nothing on the screen. (Line 41: maploader.lua; attachment: gameFolder.love)

Comments at the beginning of main.lua may be useful.

Where did I go wrong?

[bartbes]

You're not applying the metatable to the tables in "color". On line 10 of colors.lua use pairs instead of ipairs and it works.

[quevigil]

Oh my god. THANK YOU!

On a side note, I had been checking notifications constantly and your reply did not show up. I'm so glad to see that they do not lie about the niceness of this community! Thank you very much once again!

[Skeletonxf]

For your particular scenario you can actually go even further with memoization

https://www.lua.org/pil/17.1.html

If you have a color factory that remembers the previous color/tables and returns them when asked for the same ones then you can compare colors using == with no meta tables.

[davisdude]

Oh my god. THANK YOU!

On a side note, I had been checking notifications constantly and your reply did not show up. I'm so glad to see that they do not lie about the niceness of this community! Thank you very much once again!

I believe you only get notifications if you're quoted, or if you're subscribed to the topic (see the wrench next to "Post Reply")

[quevigil]

I believe you only get notifications if you're quoted, or if you're subscribed to the topic (see the wrench next to "Post Reply")

I understand now. Thank you.