Re: newproxy, bug
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: newproxy, bug
- From: Geoff Leyland <geoff_leyland@...>
- Date: 2011年1月11日 11:38:11 +1300
On 11/01/2011, at 11:10 AM, Javier Guerra Giraldez wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Roberto Ierusalimschy
> <roberto@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
>>> Any chance newproxy will be "blessed" in 5.2 ?
>>
>> No. It will probably be removed (as it never really existed).
>
> that's a pity.
>
> i wish i had a real usecase to defend, but even without; i feel it
> made the userdata types more complete.
I use proxy tables often (to get complete overriding of __index and __newindex), and if newproxy were to become supported, I think I'd switch to that. If, that is, there was any advantage of newproxy over a proxy table. Anyone know if there is one?
Cheers,
Geoff