2010/9/21 KHMan <email@example.com>
I'll leave out (a), since it is so subjective. For (b) and (c), what kind of savings did you see for your embedded system? Was it significant, given the available capacity? For us on the list, can you provide us with ballpark specifications of the embedded processor? (The last bit is getting OT, but it is interesting to find out if someone is using a previously unreported-on-the-list embedded processor for Lua...)
I'm sorry but I cannot write the detail of my project because it is proprietary. But, because, Lua is written by ANSI C, it is not so difficult to port Lua to our system. Our system doesn't support 'double', so we adopted a patch as number_t is 'long', and eliminated some math and os library functions, and so on.
The first reason that I wrote a ternary operator patch, as I wrote before, is a requirement from our excellent OLD PROGRAMMERS. They want to use it, so I wrote.
The second reason is that I cannot found a patch. There is a wiki page for a ternary operator, but it has no information about a patch. There is no information on the Power Patch page. So, I had to write it myself.
The code efficiency is not my reason to write a patch. It is a general feature of a ternary operator. In the wiki page, there are many tricky solutions about a ternary operator, using table or function, but all of them are commented as 'not efficiency'. I think, "If you interested in efficiency, why do you write a patch?".
For the official Lua, I think a ternary operator is not necessary. I’m not well versed about Lua's ideology, but I accept that Lua doesn't have an incremental operator (++), so I accept about a ternary operator, too. (But OLD PROGRAMMERS don't accept it...).