Re: Lua type names and the __type metafield
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Lua type names and the __type metafield
- From: Wesley Smith <wesley.hoke@...>
- Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 15:52:18 -0700
> Typical is *really* simple; on Lua values without a metatable, it just
> calls _G.type. If the value has a metatable, it checks for a __type
> field in the metatable and uses that if found. The typical library will
> also include some more utility functions.
>
> Obviously this is up to library and application developers to go along
> with, so I wanted to get the community's feedback on this. Do you
> folks think this is a good or bad idea? Any questions, comments, or
> suggestions?
I think this is a very nice idea. Even if it doesn't become a
widespread thing, I could see it being useful from a "not having to
reinvent the wheel" perspective. I could see extending the library to
include ideas from Julia about how types get annotated, relate to one
another, and are queried:
http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/manual/types/
http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/stdlib/base/#types
wes