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

[Coroutines <coroutines@...>]

On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Philipp Janda <siffiejoe@gmx.net> wrote:

> 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.

At that time it felt like what I wanted to accomplish wasn't a valid
solution, as it could be accomplished "these other ways..." which was
pretty discouraging.  And I'm still right that you should avoid
segfaulting in libraries :P  I always typo setuservalue()*....

Anyway, I'm pretty sure it was the list members.  I flipped a coin.