[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Extending assert () functionality
- From: Lorenzo Donati <lorenzodonatibz@...>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 18:00:06 +0200
On 26/06/2011 16.59, Rebel Neurofog wrote:
Please, try avoiding top posting. It makes threads difficult to follow.
What kind of test do you need?
Do you agree, that it is better to make assertion success case
as fast as your can, but assertion failure case may be a little
slower in price of success case?
If not then my proposal is not for you.
But If you do agree then here is the point:
And it's logic of the language (including VM). No need for testing or something.
So if we talk about improving execution speed of
assertion success case (possibly in price of success failure case),
we should use function in all cases but constant string (not even
concatenated of 2).
Please, reread my last post. I wasn't arguing about raw speed, but about
weight/speed ratio, where (maybe confusingly, I admit) "weight" means
Lua authors have repeatedly stated on this list that, although Lua speed
is important, Lua code size is important too.
I don't know if the size increase of your proposal would trigger Lua
team's "bloat-alarm", but since you are proposing to enhance Lua code
base, you should take also size in consideration. That's what I was
trying to convey.
You seem concerned only about speed, which is rightful, but Lua is used,
for example, also by people working on embedded systems, who perhaps may
have a different view on what's important. Since you are proposing to
change something used by everybody, IMHO, my (mild) objection is relevant.