Re: Arithmetic on strings

[Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:40 AM, liam mail <liam.list@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 13 June 2012 15:45, steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@trms.com> wrote:
>>> this. To my thinking, the benefits of convenience and simplification
>>> are outweighed by all of the available rope that is now lying around,
>>> waiting for someone to figure out how they might use it....
>>
>> Well said!  If it was up to me, I'd say that 5.2.1 is as good a time as any..
>>
>> steve d.
>>
>
> Lets not be too hasty, 5.2.1 is a bug fix release and I feel any such
> change like this should really wait for a 5.3 release.
> Irrespective of when this could/should be done, do you really want to
> have to call a metamethod for this in all instances? I personally
> already find 5.2 much slower than 5.1*
>
> Liam
>
>
> * Using tests for OOLua. Luabind, Swig and I suspect LuaBridge, all of
> which may need redesigning or optimising specifically for 5.2.
>

I agree with the position that 5.3 is the best place for this change,
but I'll go for .04 cents here:

Is it not the case that if coersion were to be relegated to a loaded
module, that module could also be written in C and implemented in an
almost identical way to how it is today?

-Andrew