Re: about the new version

[Carlos Cassino <cassino@...>]

> >I would even drop the requirement for the '%'.  It makes the code ugly *g*
> >(look at Perl!)
> 
> Matter of taste, really. I think that '%' marks the place of "constant" values
> and so is useful. Not having some kind of mark could mislead people into
> thinking that upvalues were writable. Yes, if they were, '%' could be dropped.

But even if upvalues were writable, removing the '%' would lead to a
confusion whether a name refers to a global or to an upvalue, isn't it?

-- Cassino