[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: __call metamethod, misleading doc or am I missing something?
- From: Tim Hill <drtimhill@...>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:51:22 -0800
> On Feb 21, 2017, at 1:18 AM, Francisco Olarte <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hi Tim:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Tim Hill <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> IMO raw or normal access does not play. In fact I introduced an
> example with a metamethod using a callable object, on normal (
> raw==unraw access ). The thing is once you have accessed the
> metamethod for __add ( ithout invoking others ) yout have to call the
> value you got, but the access is over. Or not, if you define access
> other way, but it does have nothing to do with rawnes.
Yes, and of course I quoted the wrong part of the manual (see my later post and correction to Dirk). In fact, I cannot really see any reason why __call should not handle callable either; its not really recursion, its more closer to the chaining that __index do. And of course in both cases it’s possible to setup cycles of metatables that will crash the VM.
However, I agree with your main point; this difference doesn’t seem to be made clear in the ref manual, so at the least it would be nice if this were updated to make this difference more clear.