Re: [OT] +=

["Nick Trout" <nick@...>]

>>Hmm... without people changing existing languages to make it (in their
opinion) a better language you wouldn't have hundreds of them.  There
would be no Scheme or C or ...

Fair enough. I just don't want to see the goals of Lua diverted/diluted,
i.e.. I want Lua to get faster and smaller! :-) I'm pretty happy with Luas
progress and I don't have the time to tinker about and modify it.

People are obviously free to tinker with Luas code. I just hope that the
effort isn't detrimental to Luas development. The experimental mutation and
feedback has been good for its development I'm sure but different forks of
the language could lead to fragmentation?

Anyway I suppose what I was trying to say is that I support the developers
in not supplying an easy to modify syntax as this may lead to lots of little
Luas, which could cause a lot of confusion and until now the developers have
been very careful about standards.