Re: Dubiousness of the debug library

[Brigham Toskin <brighamtoskin@...>]

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Coda Highland <chighland@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Brigham Toskin <brighamtoskin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2015, at 10:40 PM, Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So why are we still squeamish about it?
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Tim Hill <drtimhill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I confess I generally avoid it, and raise an eyebrow when people here
>> recommend it’s use in production code. If some of the functions in the
>> library are needed for day-to-day Lua functionality, then to my mind they
>> don’t really belong in the debug library.
>
>
> This is mostly not really a debug library anymore, it seems like. A better
> name is probably the "deep introspection" library. But they can't really
> change the name because that will break extant code.

It's still impolite to use it in library code, and that's where it's
often most useful.

I can see why it would be a turn off it loading a library fundamentally changed the semantics of the language while you weren't looking. Unless of course that was the whole point of the library, in which case,  caveat programptor. But if you were careful that the effects of using debug were (1) justified, (2) localized, (3) didn't cause undo resource drain on the system as a whole, I would have no qualms about going for it.

--

Brigham Toskin