Re: bit.lshift and performance - luabitop v.s. lua-5.2.0-work4

[Miles Bader <miles@...>]

Mike Pall <mikelu-1010@mike.de> writes:
> There certainly is. But that's completely missing the point.
> Nobody is going to change all of their existing code and nobody is
> going to use your workaround for all shift operations in new code.
>
> But everybody whose code silently breaks with Lua 5.2 will
> complain. Probably to me, because they don't realize that
> require("bit") is not loading the bit.so/bit.dll, anymore.

Er, then once they realize there's a simple and elegant solution,
they'll probably use it.  Problem solved, code more clear; everybody
wins! :]

-Miles

-- 
Generous, adj. Originally this word meant noble by birth and was rightly
applied to a great multitude of persons. It now means noble by nature and is
taking a bit of a rest.