[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: RE: '__iter', yet again!
- From: "John Hind" <john.hind@...>
- Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:38:20 -0000
Well, I am still not sure if that is "I'm not going to do it because I think
it is a bad idea." or "I'm not going to put that into Lua 5.2 because there
are more important things to deliver first." Most software processes I am
familiar with have a two stage decision process, an architectural decision
and an implementation decision. I would be perfectly happy if there was a
list somewhere where an idea was "Accepted/Rejected/Pending" so I was sure
it was not failing because it had been forgotten about or misunderstood.
And I will point out that I have only posted in response to others asking
questions or raising objections based on misunderstandings of the idea. I
have tried in the past to hold discussions like this on the WiKi which
strikes me as a much better medium for technical discussion, but
unfortunately that seems to be a write-only medium!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:lua-
> email@example.com] On Behalf Of Roberto Ierusalimschy
> Sent: 18 December 2009 16:44
> To: Lua list
> Subject: Re: '__iter', yet again!
> > I am just determined to make sure this idea keeps its head above the
> sea of
> > noise until Roberto gets round to pronouncing on it definitively.
> With due respect, I would say that by now you cannot keep this idea
> above the noise, because it became the noise.
> I am not sure what you mean by a "definitive" answer (does it mean we
> cannot change our minds later??), but if this is the only way to stop
> the noise, I give a definitive answer: no, we do not intend to add
> an __iter metamethod in Lua 5.2.
> -- Roberto
- Re: '__iter', yet again!, Jerome Vuarand
- Re: '__iter', yet again!, Tobias Kieslich
- Re: '__iter', yet again!, David Kastrup
- RE: '__iter', yet again!, John Hind
- Re: '__iter', yet again!, Roberto Ierusalimschy