Re: __index returns truncated to one, why?

[Thomas Jericke <tjericke@...>]

On 04/10/2014 08:46 PM, duz wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I still don't see why it is so important to
> throw away any values here. Why is __index it in 2.4 defined to
>
>    return (h(table,index))
>
> instead of just
>
>    return h(table,index)
>
> which I'd find good uses for.
This has been answered before:
On 04/10/2014 09:50 AM, Tim Hill wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2014, at 12:45 AM, Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2014-04-10 9:06 GMT+02:00 duz <duz@sol-3.de>:
> >
> > > Please do not truncate the results returned from __index to 1!
> > I'll support that, for now, until somone demonstrates the unpleasant
> > side effects this might have.
> local a,b = tracker[1]
>
> Seems ok to me, but i’d be worried about:
>
> foo(tracker[1])
>
> Passing extra values into a function unexpectedly.
>
> —Tim

This argument is currently enough reason for me to keep it as it is. 
Otherwise you would see a lot of foo((tracker[1])) in Lua code.
I once thought that adding an additional return value to an existing 
function is a harmless change, it isn't. I learned that the hard way.
--
Thomas