Re: [ANN] Lua 5.2.0 (alpha-rc2) now available

[KHMan <keinhong@...>]

On 11/20/2010 9:11 AM, dcharno wrote:
> On 11/19/2010 01:57 PM, Alexander Gladysh wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 20:59, Ralph Hempel wrote:
> > > Nick Gammon wrote:
> > > If you are at all flexible on the names, then I prefer bit.band
> > > over
> > > bit.AND
> >
> > If I remember correctly (perhaps I'm wrong), 5.2 bitlib
> > semantics is
> > significantly different from established one.
> >
> > This is the good reason to keep function names different.
>
> This is the reason you make your module name different. It is not
> a good reason to CAPTIALIZE a FUNCTION name.

Let me reiterate my agreement with this -- Miles Bader and I 
mentioned this 3 weeks ago but it only seems to have gotten some 
momentum now.

Let's have a bigger chorus of opinions on this novelty and see 
which side is louder :-) Speak up!

Even if two libraries are a teeny bit different, sharing a set of 
names is no biggie. We're not likely to get confused once we pick 
one to use, either statically or dynamically. If we want to use 
both at the same time, then we'd better know what we are doing eh...

I suppose I can live with all-caps if it does comes to that, but 
it, ah, really sucks. :-(

--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia