Re: Proposal: Proposals are the wrong approach [prose and long]

[Philipp Janda <siffiejoe@...>]

Am 03.05.2014 23:37 schröbte Coroutines:
> On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Philipp Janda <siffiejoe@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > Probably because it had nothing to do with syntax :-p
>
> I'm just saying, it was "downvoted" at the time but still made it
> upstream.  It was a valid proposal that was instead shot down with
> "Why would you need to?" and "You can do it this convoluted way..."  I
> think the list suffers from people who refuse to recognize a need, in
> favor of minimalism that stifles growth -- in any direction (even
> smaller).

I re-read that thread: You got one proposal to wrap a struct in another 
struct, one proposal to use a single weak environment table indexed by 
userdata (both purely constructive), one claim that the memory overhead 
probably wasn't that bad, and even some mild support ("p.s.: The 
function is called `lua_setuservalue` not `lua_setusertable`. Just 
saying ...") -- by myself I might add. The rest was about defensive 
programming, segmentation faults in modules, and other totally unrelated 
stuff. This is hardly "downvoted" or "shot down". So I still think the 
recent proposals are to blame instead of the list members.

Philipp