Re: [GD-General] Scripting Systems

[Brett B. <res...@ga...>]

> Run-time is the only way to do it.  Lua is a dynamically typed=20
> language, and since it doesn't even comprehend the idea of user=20
> defined types, "type checking" is kind of a no-op. =20
>=20
> What we'd need is a preprocessor that uses a convention where any=20
> uninitialized element accessed out of a table constructor or=20
> declaration is definitely bad.
>=20
> v =3D { x =3D 0, y =3D 0, z =3D 0 }
> v.zz =3D 3 --<< BZZZT!
>

Idea 1
A hack to be sure, but I could trap the __index error and do some sort =
of "spell checker" against known elements, starting with the locals and =
working my way upward. If it finds a recommended match (within some sort =
of error metric) it changes it and keeps going. If I have a debugger it =
could pop-up with the suggestion and allow me to accept or choose =
another symbol and optionally modify the source for me to correct the =
problem. Without a debugger it could output a log that looks like =
preprocessor logs showing the error, line number, etc. As long as there =
is an option to enable/disable the feature, it would probably fix like =
90% of the errors.

Idea 2
Based upon the concept of automated unit testing, I could load the =
function to compile, generate a unit test for each function, compile and =
load both of them, and run the unit test against it. Failures could do =
something like Idea 1 above and when fixed is written to disk (as an =
obj). This gives you a Lint-like system and since we compile each =
function as an object, incremental build will keep the performance =
acceptable. Plus it has the ability to interactively fix problems.

Anybody tried this? This sounds pretty workable to me.

Brett