> Hrm, that certainly sounds promising, but, I think one of the email servers
> is mangling the patch file -- my attempts to apply it are giving me a
> "malformed patch" error. Can you try emailing it inside a zip?
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Xavier Wang <
weasley.wx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for that, that's because Lua 5.2 changed the semantics of
>> globals. in Lua 5.1 the K code of name of a global variable is stored
>> in the
u.info of expdesc, but in Lua 5.2 there is no VGLOBAL any more,
>> only VINDEXED as global (x is the semantics sugar of _ENV.x), so we
>> should take names from u.ind.idx.
>>
>> try to using this one? It works with your code :-)
>>
>> 2012/2/18 Sven Olsen <
sven2718@gmail.com>:
>> > Thanks for sharing that :)
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, I'm hitting bugs when I try to apply the patch. A little
>> > experimenting shows that I can sometimes trigger access violations in
>> > luaV_execute when executing this simple chunk:
>> >
>> > local _ENV = {}
>> > a in _ENV
>> >
>> > But, I'm not quite sure how to debug this. Switch the "a in _ENV" to
>> > "local
>> > a in _ENV" gets rid of the error, so falling back on RiscLua's minimal
>> > version of the patch seems safe...
>> >
>> > -Sven
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Xavier Wang <
weasley.wx@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I have made one several months ago.
>> >>
>> >> Any feedback welcome :-)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2012/2/17 Sven Olsen <
sven2718@gmail.com>:
>> >> > Since upgrading to 5.2, I've been missing Peter Shook's "unpack
>> >> > tables
>> >> > by
>> >> > name" patch. RiscLua includes a 5.2 compatible version of the patch,
>> >> > but,
>> >> > it's strictly limited to the case of unpacking locals, whereas
>> >> > the original 5.1 patch would unpack into arbitrary variables.
>> >> > I preferred the old patch because it made it possible to selectively
>> >> > copy
>> >> > pieces of a table without the need to quote variable names, i.e.,
>> >> >
>> >> > _ENV=env1
>> >> > a,b,c,d in env2
>> >> >
>> >> > Does anyhow have a 5.2 version of the patch that supports the old
>> >> > semantics?
>> >> > (My own attempt to update Peter's 5.1 code to the 5.2 parser failed
>> >> > miserably.)
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >
>> >> > -Sven
>> >
>
>
