[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Possible enhancements for Lua 5.2
- From: David Kastrup <dak@...>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:55:32 +0200
Shawn Fox <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> A language does not grow in a healthy way by adding things for
> which you cannot find a reason to omit.
> I'm not surprised to hear this argument from you as I've seen you post
> similar garbage before. Frankly your reply is offensive and not at
> all constructive, rather that making such a childish statement, in the
> future please give a valid argument as to why a suggestion is not a
> good idea and you'll get a civil response from me.
> While it may be obvious to you that creating a custom allocator is a
> potential solution, that is not at all obvious to someone who is new
> to Lua even if they are a highly proficient C/C++ programmer.
Special allocation needs and limits in a C or C++ program have to be
solved by creating custom allocators (or using OS limits, an approach
that should work with Lua as well), so I don't see that Lua is very
unusual in that respect.
> In my opinion, the need to cap memory is such a common problem that
> it ought to be supported already without having to use a custom
> allocator or modify the Lua source code itself. Certainly you can
> argue that I am an idiot and my opinion is wrong,
Frankly, you are not leaving him much leeway to argue.
> but please provide evidence and reasoning behind your statement or do
> not reply at all if you cannot do so.
If I were asking for upstream changes, a total lack of upstream reply
would not be my favorite response. So I hope that this request will
only be granted with respect to your own questions here.