Re: Syntactic sugar for sets

[Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@...>]

> Successful languages eventually crumble under the support of unfortunate
> design choices, that have been made too lightly. So the rationalized
> argument for rejecting most proposals, including the one which sparked this
> discussion, is: "*the gain is marginal at best, whereas touching the
> standard has huge and unpredictable consequences. Risks are way out of
> proportion to the achievable gains*". So the fact that such tiny proposals
> are silently ignored by the Lua team is both very reasonable, and completely
> unrelated to the existence of metaprog systems. These systems don't rob you
> from the Lua team's attention, they just give you a limited ability to do
> without it.
 
Thanks :)

(BTW, the talk "The Evolution of Lua"[1] presented at the Second Lua
Workshop has a discussion about "What are the costs of a feature".)

[1] http://www.inf.puc-rio.br/%7Eroberto/talks/workshop2006.pdf

-- Roberto