How to call a function in a module using a variable as the name?

Help and Feedback Scripting Support
#1

I would like to call a function in a required module using a variable as its name. For example, in the required module I have a few functions:

function module:Ability_1(arg1,arg2)
  --stuff
end

function module:Ability_2(arg1,arg2)
  --more stuff
end

in the script requiring the module above, I would like to set a variable and then call the functions depending the variable set, like this:

local abilityModule = require(theModuleAbove)
local abilityToFire = "Ability_2"

function module:FireAbility(arg1,arg2)
  abilityModule:[abilityToFire](arg1,arg2)
end

I don’t think this code works, I tried a bunch of way to call a function inside a required module script but had no success. What I have had to do is place a function at the head of the called module which receives and argument of which ability to fire, then routes it properly form there. I was hoping ti simplify things so that’s why I made this post.

Anyone know how to do this?

Thanks it advance!

#2

If your code has no notion of objects then don’t use :. Remember that a.b is syntax sugar for a["b"]. And a:b() is sugar for a.b(a).

So you would just do.

abilityModule[abilityToFire](arg1, arg2)

without the :.

Since you aren’t using oop then there is no need for a : therefore I didn’t pass abilityModule as the first argument.

5 Likes
#3

you have to return something because require on a module script waits for a return, its mostly a table, so to use this, change it to:

local module = {}

function module:Ability_1(arg1,arg2)
  --stuff
end

function module:Ability_2(arg1,arg2)
  --more stuff
end

return module

you have to return the table at the end after the functions

Edit: just realized that the module wasn’t for the code, lol, im stupid

1 Like
#4

i know how to use a module, i left the table out for simplicity :slight_smile:

#5

I mainly use : instead of . for consistency, I do use OOP in some parts of my work but not all, and not in this portion of the script. Since they operate the same, its just a good habit to be in because if you slip up an place a . instead of : somewhere, its a harder bug to find.

Is there a way to do this while still using : and not . ?

#6

No. There is no ‘consistency’ issues here. If you aren’t using oop then don’t use :. You aren’t using self anywhere, so you don’t need :.

Think of your module as just a library of utility functions or a singleton depending on how you use it.

1 Like
#7

I gotcha, I dont “need” it but whether it is used or not that way is a matter of opinion.

: in your code signifies a method, not whether or not your using OOP.

Again, i guess my question remains, is there way to achieve the same thing wihtout switching to . instead of :

thanks!

#8

Preferences can be wrong. Just because you like something doesn’t mean that it’s not wrong. Preferring : over . when you aren’t even using it correctly is indeed wrong. Misusing : misconstrues the meaning of your code.

Yes a method, and a method is a member function. Your module is more of a library, like you don’t use math:random() or table:insert() or do you?

So no, you don’t need : since you aren’t using it for self or anything.

1 Like
#9

thanks, my question still remains unanswered though your posts are very helpful.

#10

Looks like you won’t get an answer any time soon then, because there is no answer, unless you want your code to be misleading, but whatever works for you

1 Like
#11

so your saying its not possible with : ?

its only possible with . ?

#12

It isn’t impossible, as incapaz has said, you will just have to use the same code he provided, but you’ll pass abilityModule as the first argument:

abilityModule[abilityToFire](abilityModule, ...)

The point he’s trying to bring across is that it’s unnecessary to use colon syntax when you’re not dealing with OOP

3 Likes