Re: Another take on locals by default.

[Enrico Tassi <gares@...>]

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 03:28:12PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Gérardy wrote:
> I mean, why was the syntax (or a variation thereof, since it freed the
> % operator) removed?
> 
> It is not incompatible with either proper lexical scoping or
> read/write upvalues.
> 
> It just add syntactic guards and prevents potential blunders

I don't know the real reason, but I find that not having to prefix 
variable names with funny symbols like in many other languages is a
pretty damn good reason ;-)

More seriously I find that a wrong access to a global is easy to prevent
changing the metatable of _G (or just require strict).

Cheers
-- 
Enrico Tassi