Re: get_local() and "(for index/limit/stop)"

[Rici Lake <lua@...>]

On 15-Sep-04, at 7:28 PM, Fabio Mascarenhas wrote:

> Then the right thing is the behavior of Lua 5.0.2 (in fact, this is 
> the way for is explained in the reference manual :-) ).

That is true, "right" is quite subjective. I had quotes around it at 
first, but they seemed redundant.

>  You can easily have it the other way by explicitely declaring another 
> local:

Yes. But it is hard to think of a case where you would not want the new 
behaviour.

> Well, I'm sure this new way will be documented in the 5.1 reference 
> manual. :-)

I have no doubt. This does not mean that it is necessary to define the 
behaviour in the case of assigning to an index variable, though -- I 
have no problem with explicitly documented undefined behaviour; 
assigning to index variables is probably poor style in any event.

>  And the loop variable is not really created anew each iteration; the 
> same register is reused. There is no performance penalty.

In fact, it is quite possibly slightly faster for "for ... in" 
statements. The loop variable is *conceptually* created anew each 
iteration.