Re: [Lua-users-stdlib] Upheaval (blame Jamie Webb!)

[Reuben T. <rr...@sc...>]

> I'm wondering though if the special-purpose stuff wouldn't be better going
> straight into Cheia rather than stdlib.

Quite possibly. It's really just a question of presentation.

> Perhaps some metrics on level of usage of each function would be more
> appropriate.

Right.

> Mmm... except that most of what is in Lua table ought to be in vector.

So that's part of our re-org of the existing libraries.

> > I'll end with a concrete proposal of what I think is best from the above:
> > we should add "vector" and "function" to the current "string", "table"
> > &c., and put all our additions into those four tables. One or two are
> > tricky (are map and filter in function or table?) but they all fit in one
> > of the four. Once that's done we can take another look.
>
> Well, fn or something rather than function presumably

Keyword, duh. func?

> Given the argument order, the existing convention suggests that map and
> filter ought to be in function. Trouble with that is that then you can't
> have vector.map, list.map, table.map, etc. So, either the argument order
> needs changing (bad, because other languages have it that way round, and
> it makes the most sense for partial applicaton), the convention needs
> abandoning (might be bad, depending on this whole { __index = table }
> business), or map needs to be on vectors only (bad; not very
> forward-thinking).

It's a real pity that next() is linear or map over vectors wouldn't have
to be different from map over tables.

-- 
http://www.mupsych.org/~rrt/ | maxim, n.  wisdom for fools