Re: loadstring vs load

[Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@...>]

> > It would be possible to deprecate load as well, in favor of loadin.  I
> > wonder why 5.2-alpha didn't redefine load as such:
> >
> >  load (ld [, source [, env, [, mode]]])
> 
> The way it stands at the moment, load() will accept a bytecode chunk
> with no upvalues, whereas loadin() will reject a bytecode chunk with
> no upvalues. I would certainly be in favour of combining load() and
> loadin(), though I would go for "load (ld [, source [, mode, [,
> env]]])" as otherwise you couldn't use the default environment with a
> custom mode parameter (as a nil environment is a valid environment),

Note that 'loadin' does not expose the global environment to a user,
unlike 'load'. So, it would be safe to allow 'loadin' in a sandbox,
but unsafe to allow 'load'.

(However, given binary mode, 'loadin' is not safe anyway, so this
argument is void.)


> and I'd also like the resulting function to accept bytecode chunks
> with no upvalues.

You mean, even given an environment? Just ignore it in that case?

-- Roberto