Re: mathlib

[Hisham <h@...>]

On 7 April 2014 16:38, Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@gmail.com> wrote:
> There has been more negative reaction, in stronger language too,
> to every point raised in favour of keeping the functions, from PUC-Rio
> than from any of the users elsewhere. The one point that is hard to
> argue against, that the saving in executable size is less that 0.1%,
> has been ignored.

Countless other features have also been proposed in the past that
would amount to 10-line patches and they have been solemnly ignored by
the Lua team (including personal favorites of mine which I shall not
name here lest this thread starts drifting off again). That's why _I_
didn't even touch the "executable size" argument; I suppose that when
they proposed the removal, they were already aware of how much code it
was.

> This suggests that in fact the decision has already been taken. If that
> is the case, please tell us so, then we can close this discussion.

Ah, minor point wrt "coming from PUC-Rio", which is a vague
description — I thought it shouldn't be necessary to say so, but in
spite of my IP address and geographic location, my opinions do not
represent those from my university, nor my research group (and most
certainly not those from the Lua team!).

I'm writing this just as another Lua user (who has his own personal
set of complaints about the language as well!).

-- Hisham
http://hisham.hm/