Re: newproxy, bug

[Geoff Leyland <geoff_leyland@...>]

On 11/01/2011, at 11:10 AM, Javier Guerra Giraldez wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Roberto Ierusalimschy
> <roberto@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
>>> Any chance newproxy will be "blessed" in 5.2 ?
>> 
>> No. It will probably be removed (as it never really existed).
> 
> that's a pity.
> 
> i wish i had a real usecase to defend, but even without; i feel it
> made the userdata types more complete.

I use proxy tables often (to get complete overriding of __index and __newindex), and if newproxy were to become supported, I think I'd switch to that.  If, that is, there was any advantage of newproxy over a proxy table.  Anyone know if there is one?

Cheers,
Geoff