[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: [ANN] Luacheck 0.19.0
- From: Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@...>
- Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 14:57:15 +0200
2017-03-04 14:45 GMT+02:00 Peter Aronoff <email@example.com>:
> Dirk Laurie <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> What is the main reason for using Luacheck?
>> (a) A debugging tool.
>> (b) Enforcing a certain style of coding.
>> (c) Advising a programmer on things in his program that
>> might make trouble one day.
>> Unless you use it for (b), I would not be concerned about the
>> occasional extra warning in situations where any human can
>> see it is OK. Turing has already taught us that we can't use
>> a program to test correctness of a program. Why clutter
>> Luacheck with exceptional cases?
> This seems reasonable enough, and my point wasn’t to force luacheck to do
> enormous amounts of work. But I still think that a linter for language
> X shouldn’t (in general) warn against using standard idioms in language X.
Fair enough ... but in that case one should in general not flag the idiom.
I.e. `undefined_global or workaround` should pass whenever `workaround`
passes, whether the global name is present in some known version of Lua