Re: [ANN] mergelua

[Mike Pall <mikelu-1110@...>]

David Manura wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Petite Abeille
> <petite.abeille@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Pure speculation on your part? Lets see... random selection... LuaSocket? ah, uses module...
> > LuaJIT? Oh, module again... LuaRocks? module... CGILua? oh my... module again...
> 
> LuaJIT is an interesting case because the author's posts in the
> anti-module camp were also cited in this discussion.

Well, this is inherited from LuaJIT 1.x. Removing all uses of
module() is on my TODO list. It's a simple case of me being too
lazy. :-)

> (Incidentally, that -j switch may be worth adding
> to standard Lua as well to support the OP's question,

Maybe. But not with '-j', please.

> here's a search for package.seeall, of which there are 52
> package matches:
> [...] 
> luajit

That must be a false match. And, yes, package.seeall is ugly and
I'm happy when it's gone. Its sheer existence is another good
argument against module().

For the record, here are my current opinions (subject to change):

- module: has not held up to its promise, ought to go
- package.seeall: ugly
- table.pack: pointless, unorthogonal, confusing newbies, bad
  Same category as table.maxn -- NOBODY asked for that, either!
- _ENV: ok
- goto: good, on my TODO list
- __gc for tables: bad idea, roadblock for further GC evolution

--Mike