Re: Propsoal: a lua dialect without nil

[Tim Mensch <tim-lua-l@...>]

On 2/15/2011 3:20 AM, Axel Kittenberger wrote:
> Another simplificition or "cleanliness" modification would be, with
> nil gone, you do not need implicit booleans interpretations anymore.
> Only true is true and only false is false. If you need to test a value
> to be anything than false, just write (value ~= false) please.

Yuck. This is a mis-feature of Java that I absolutely hate. This alone
would kill the idea for me; I prefer to type less, not more.

I agree with just about every other objection that's been brought up as
well; nil is fine as it stands, and if you want you can lock a table to
new values using a proxy to catch accidental typos (and/or use
strict.lua to catch accidental globals).

Tim