Re: __methcall

[Mark Hamburg <mhamburg@...>]

on 11/4/04 4:53 PM, Daniel Silverstone at dsilvers@digital-scurf.org wrote:

> On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 10:26 -0800, Mark Hamburg wrote:
>>> I think the easiest way to answer the questions regarding my patch is to
>>> simply say..
>>> __methcall first, then __index, then the table itself
>> But what about entries in the table itself? Do those trump __methcall?
> 
> I said; completely clearly I think...
> 
> __methcall *first*
> __index *second*
> the table itself *last*
> 
> The patch itself makes this abundantly clear also

I think your patch actually does:

    table first
    __methcall next
    __index last

You would want the table to come before __index anyway if you wanted to
preserve Lua's semantics when not using __methcall (or __methindex or
whatever).

Mark