[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: How about removing the underscores from metatables?
- From: KHMan <keinhong@...>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 23:07:03 +0800
On 1/27/2011 10:52 PM, Axel Kittenberger wrote:
The similarity been drawn here to __python__ __magic__ should sound
just as well a warning bell, as to the win32 api (the most horrible
api I've ever worked with).
Then I guess developers should break away from letting their
Pavlovian responses rule and master their insecurities. :-)
It's a molehill, not a mountain. (But in the age of Facebook and
blogs, I suppose molehills are useful for filling up a mailing
list with long discussions. (Half-)kidding. ;-p)
We just need some good recipes. Once metatables are set up, we
rarely need to deal with those __abc stuff in the rest of the
code. No biggie.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:41 PM, KHMan wrote:
On 1/27/2011 10:24 PM, Mateusz Czaplinski wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:20 AM, steve donovan wrote:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Axel Kittenberger wrote:
any content of metatables? My guess that newbies are so freightened
from metas is just exactly the __syntax.
Hm, I don't think newbies should worry themselves about metatables.
They are a subtle concept and the underscores are the least part.
Personally, I do agree with that view.
The anxiety is likely because the first document newbies get hold of is the
reference manual in the sources. Trouble is, these things become really
clear when there are a lot of samples or recipes to examine. The ref man
does not really help with that; the PIL book is the one to read. Or the
wiki. Same with weak tables...
[snip snip snip]
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia