[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua 5.3: wrong coercion?
- From: Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@...>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 00:10:09 +0200
2015-01-17 15:55 GMT+02:00 Andrew Starks <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> I go back and forth between caring and suspecting that I just want to be one
> of the kewl kids that hates coercion.
> However, if I may proffer a guess as to how it would change:
> 1: A big section of us compiles Lua with the flags turned on.
> 2: When modules fail, submit pull requests (it will take 2 seconds to patch
> 3: Report back that the world didn't end.
> Alternately we can leave N2S off, but if we're going rouge, we may as well
> do a proper job of it. Making the modules we use explicit would be nice and
> it will mean that we can report back the level of pain for both flags, which
> will be useful, for science.
If Lua had no S2N from the start, I would not feel deprived.
If Lua had no N2S from the start, I would feel a little deprived, since even
Pari-GP has it.
But now Lua has both, and I have had four years to grow into them,
and I would feel highly deprived if someone took them away now.
It ain't broke. Don't fix it.