Adds `as_bytes` to view the string as a `[u8]`. Unlike the conversion to
a `&str` slice, this cannot fail.
Adds tests for both functions, which made me notice that `to_str` is
broken when the string contains null bytes, so I made it use the
`as_bytes` method.
Not only was this code not equivalent, it didn't even run since varargs
cannot be used as an upvalue (it's multiple values, after all).
Since Lua does not allow passing 2 sets of variadic arguments to a
function, the resulting code would be *very* complex and would involve
packing both sets of varargs into tables, concatenating them, then
`table.unpack`ing them to finally pass them.
This complex code would only make the docs more difficult to understand,
which is the opposite effect I originally intended with this. Let's just
get rid of this bad equivalence.
> Examples use ?, not try!, not unwrap (C-QUESTION-MARK)
> Like it or not, example code is often copied verbatim by users.
> Unwrapping an error should be a conscious decision that the user
> needs to make.
Rename the following:
LuaNil => Nil
LuaExternalError => ExternalError
LuaExternalResult => ExternalResult
LuaCallback => Callback (internal only)
Use qualified re-exports at the top of the module.
Add a new public 'prelude' module which re-exports everything with a
non-conflicting name (Adds back the Lua prefix), and is meant to be imported
unqualified.
This required a lot of little adjustments where we used std's `String`
before. In downstream code, this shouldn't be necessary, as you can just
do `use rlua::String as LuaString` to disambiguate.
Lua 5.3 has the ability for scripts to define __gc metamethods on
tables, which gives them the ability to "resurrect" userdata after __gc
has been called. This means, __gc can be called multiple times on
userdata. This commit protects against this by simply panicking on
access after resurrection. This is possibly not the best approach?
I know, this is the opposite of PR #17 wishes to do, please don't take this as
an indication that I would wish to do the opposite. I actually want to discuss
PR #17 with you, but I'm not sure about it yet, and my pedantry will not allow
me to let this remain inconsistent in the meantime. This way, either way it's
consistent haha.
It, ahem "should not" be possible to exhaust lua stack space in normal usage,
and causing stack errors to be Err is slightly obnoxious. I have been wanting
to make this change for a while, and removing the callback API from tables makes
this sensible *I think*.
I can think of a couple of ways that this is not technically true, but I think
that they are acceptable, or should be handled differently.
One, you can make arbitrarily sized LuaVariadic values. I think this is maybe a
bug already, because there is an argument limit in Lua which is lower than the
stack limit. I'm not sure what happens there, but if it is a stack based panic,
(or any panic?) it is a bug.
Two, I believe that if you recurse over and over between lua -> rust -> lua ->
rust etc, and call rlua API functions, you might get a stack panic. I think for
trusted lua code, this is morally equivalent to a regular stack overflow in
plain rust, which is already.. well it's not a panic but it's some kind of safe
crash I'm not sure, so I think this is acceptable. For *untrusted* lua code,
this could theoretically be a problem if the API provided a callback that would
call back into lua, then some lua script could force a stack based panic. There
are so many concerns with untrusted lua code, and this library is NOT safe
enough yet for untrusted code (it doesn't even provide an option to limit lua to
the safe API subset yet!), so this is not currently an issue. When the library
provides support for "safe lua", it should come with big warnings anyway, and
being able to force a stack panic is pretty minor in comparison.
I think if there are other ways to cause unbounded stack usage, that it is a
bug, or there can be an error just for that situation, like argument count
limits.
This commit also fixes several stupid bugs with tests, stack checking, and
panics.
I'm not 100% sold on the LuaError design, I think there are a lot of questions
still, but there have been enough bugfixes that it's better to do a cargo bump.
Jonas Schievink