Re: [ANN] Lua 5.2.0 (alpha-rc2) now available
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [ANN] Lua 5.2.0 (alpha-rc2) now available
- From: KHMan <keinhong@...>
- Date: 2010年11月21日 09:55:15 +0800
On 11/21/2010 4:59 AM, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo wrote:
It is not a good reason to CAPTIALIZE a FUNCTION name.
The all-caps names in bit32 are clearly not ideal but I don't see that
they warrant such a fuss. Yes, they look like assembly directives and
that's on purpose. Of all the alternatives we considered (like the ones
suggested here), this one sucked less and had the clear advantage of
being different yet consistent with common asm use. If you think the
all-caps names are shouting, please do use your own local names (or
even rename them directly in bit32). No one wants to write code with
complicated expressions involving bit32.AND and bit32.XOR, whatever the
actual names are.
Oh good, the high priesthood is talking :-) Good, some feedback is
better than one-way traffic.
To me it's just a library. No different from the rest. Why does it
have to look different? We did fine before with lower case.
Leaving aside the aliasing, many people are attuned to having all
caps as constants.
I think only ancient assembly code users insist on having all caps
as mnemonics. All caps as mnemonics was never necessary, it was
merely due to keyboards and terminals having defaults of upper
case. Remember COBOL, FORTRAN, BASIC? *Everyone* has moved on from
all caps. All caps is not modern practice. Caps Lock and Shift are
being used less and less.
When I write assembly language these days, it's in all lower case
except for constant equates. This is consistent with common use of
constants in C for instance, and one becomes attuned to quickly
scanning source code patterns in that way. For embedded
programming people, bit manipulation is routine and I don't see
why bit32 functions has to look special. High-speed kernels like
graphics kernels or crypto are often in assembly -- maybe they use
upper case -- but they are pretty static write-once rarely-touched
blocks of code and is *very* different from code worked on daily.
I don't think "common asm usage" is a valid rationale at all.
Complicated expressions can be written with bit32.band etc also,
if the user chooses to do so. When performance is not an issue,
then there is no problem. No kittens will die. I thought one time
the top duo even said using globals are very fast and not too bad
compared to locals on the list. But now you are saying that
aliasing using locals is standard practice? Whatever happened to
simplicity that aliasing using locals is now such a virtue? Also
when I alias, I try to stick to the same names. Having custom
names for aliases means different usage in different programs from
different places and unnecessary comprehension effort.
The arguments put forward to justify the change is not convincing
in the least.
It's just a library. They are just functions and methods. It's not
assembly code. Lua looking like assembly code (maybe because it
was easy to port stuff like that) is not a virtue.
I have said my spiel and I'll slither away for now.
--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia