Re: suggestion: __typeof()

[eugeny gladkih <john@...>]

"Dolan, Ryanne Thomas (UMR-Student)" <rtdmr6@umr.edu> writes:

> I still say there is no issue.  Maybe I wasn't being clear:
>
> T = {};
> M = {};
> M.__typeof = function () return "userdata", "MyType" end;
> setmetatable (T, M);
>
> --old code:
> if type (T) == "userdata" then
>     print "Old code still works";
> end;
>
> --new code:
> t, s = type (T)
> if t == "userdata" and s == "MyType" then
>     print "new code can take advantage of extra info";
> end;

why not? it seems to be very elegant solution!

>
> See?  The new behavior of type () should be as follows:  If there is a __typeof metamethod, then call it and return the results.  Otherwise, use default behavior (return "table", "userdata", etc).  The metamethod can just return two values to avoid breaking older code that expects only "userdata" or "table".
>
> Now, of course if I define a __typeof metamethod that only returns one value, then it can potentially break older code.  But it should be up to the programmers whether to include backwards compatibility in their scripts.  The language should not be held back just because an improvement might allow a poor programmer to break older, poorer code.  Coming up with some patch is a way worse alternative.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lua-bounces@bazar2.conectiva.com.br on behalf of Asko Kauppi
> Sent: Tue 1/17/2006 2:45 PM
> To: Lua list
> Subject: Re: suggestion: __typeof()
>  
>
> Hmm.. the old code will break only _if_ the new type() is there _and_  
> some userdata implements the __typeof metamethod.
>
> I think this makes the chances rather slim, also the calling code  
> would implicitly expect Lua never-ever to get any more types than it  
> now has, which is bad presumption anyhow.
>
> -asko
>
>
> Alex Queiroz kirjoitti 17.1.2006 kello 16.25:
>
>> Hallo,
>>
>> On 17/01/06, Lisa Parratt <lisa@thecommune.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> So because someone might cut their fingers off, we shouldn't use  
>>> knives?
>>> Just because someone might burn themselves, we shouldn't cook food?
>>>
>>
>>      Please stop trying to be Lao-Tze.
>>
>>> Just because a facility has consequences that may be problematical  
>>> is no
>>> reason to utterly dismiss the facility.
>>>
>>
>>      Luiz is talking about all the old code that would break with this
>> new type function. Unfortunately people can't see the future yet, so
>> as to avoid burning themselves.
>>
>> --
>> -alex
>> http://www.ventonegro.org/
>
>
>
>

-- 
Yours sincerely, Eugeny.
Doctor Web, Ltd. http://www.drweb.com