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

[Patrick Donnelly <batrick@...>]

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 9:52 PM, dcharno <dcharno@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/20/2010 03:59 PM, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo wrote:
>>>
>>> It is not a good reason to CAPTIALIZE a FUNCTION name.
>>
>> The all-caps names in bit32 are clearly not ideal but I don't see that
>> they warrant such a fuss. Yes, they look like assembly directives and
>> that's on purpose. Of all the alternatives we considered (like the ones
>> suggested here), this one sucked less and had the clear advantage of
>> being different yet consistent with common asm use. If you think the
>> all-caps names are shouting, please do use your own local names (or
>> even rename them directly in bit32). No one wants to write code with
>> complicated expressions involving bit32.AND and bit32.XOR, whatever the
>> actual names are.
> [...]
> I'm not sure what happened with this release.  The Lua team seems to be
> ultra sensitive and defensive to any criticism.  I know its difficult to
> please everyone.  I know you'll do what you want because, after all, its
> your language.  Forget all the caps and the semantics and the differences,
> the worst change I see in Lua 5.2 is attitude.

I want to highlight what you previously wrote:

>>> It is not a good reason to CAPTIALIZE a FUNCTION name.

You are being purposefully belligerent and when the authors call you
and others out on it for making a fuss, their attitude is bad? Really?

It's fine to discuss the merits of capital letters in function names
but don't complain when others respond in kind to your barbed
assertions.

-- 
- Patrick Donnelly