Re: [Suggestion] Passing upvalues to load()

[Rena <hyperhacker@...>]

On Oct 6, 2015 2:50 PM, "Coda Highland" <chighland@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Tim Hill <drtimhill@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Oct 5, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Soni L. <fakedme@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think load() should, in addition to _ENV, also take a list of upvalues, which are only used when loading bytecode.
> >>
> >> When loading bytecode _ENV is assumed to be the first upvalue, upvalue 0, so we just need to make it varargs for the other upvalues.
> >>
> >> This reduces the need for debug.upvaluejoin() (or w/e, setupvalue?) when loading bytecode.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Disclaimer: these emails may be made public at any given time, with or without reason. If you don't agree with this, DO NOT REPLY.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Why only when loading bytecode? Post-compilation, there is no difference between bytecode and source code.
>
> Source code can't (easily) refer to upvalues positionally. Source code
> uses names. Varargs passed to load() don't have names.
>
> So sure, there's no reason why the function should throw an error if
> you DO pass them, but uncompiled code inside will have a hard time
> interoperating with them.
>
> /s/ Adam
>

Any reason the upvalues couldn't be given as a table?