Re: Feature request: plain option for gsub

[Sean Conner <sean@...>]

It was thus said that the Great Axel Kittenberger once stated:
> 
> I agree that an additional parameter for gsub is nonsense. A string:replace
> function would be sensible tough, since it skips all pattern matching.
> Don't tell me how one can build such function with match and string
> concatenation. I think everbody firm with coding knows, but wonders, why
> s/he has to reinvent this wheel once again.

  One could ask why Lua doesn't include directory manipulation routines, or
UTF-8 support, or a way to serialize a table and why we all have to reinvent
all this stuff over and over again.

  I'm begining to think there are a few different classes of people that use
Lua---one class being the embedders (I'm in that class) where the lack of
batteries isn't that much of a concern as we're adding scripting ability to
an existing application (or creating an application with scripting
capabilities), and another class that uses the example stand alone Lua
interpreter *as* a language and thus, the lack of batteries is a stumbling
block.

> This issue viewed with from a step back, anything on Lua that begins with
> "feature request" is 100%ly to be shot down initially, with a 1% chance it
> might be picked up later anyway, when it is "invented here". Its the way
> that is.

  Perhaps if a patch or proof-of-concept is made, and it's shown that many
people want it, it might have a better chance of being accepted than just a
proposal thrown out there with "add this!"

  -spc (Remember, the Internet was built out of running code and rough
	consensus ... )