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.
