Re: Down with Upvalues

["John Belmonte" <jvb@...>]

Edgar Toernig wrote:

> > ... an optional stepping stone which is this: lexical scoping with
> > read-only access.  This is what John Ramsdell already
> > suggested.  Read-only access would still necessitate the use
> > of "closure tables", but would at least get rid of the upvalue
> > syntax.
>
> Like this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lua-l/message/1650 ?

No I think that may be different.  The "upvalues" in your modification were
still copies of the original variable right?  In other words if the original
value is changed it won't affect the closure.

This is significant because if the read-access semantics will change from
the "stepping stone" to the ideal then it's not a stepping stone at all, and
will just confuse things by introducing more version incompatibilities.

-John