Re: [manual] metamethod presentation

[Stephan Hennig <sh-list@...>]

Am 05.02.2016 um 06:28 schrieb Dirk Laurie:
> 2016-02-04 23:37 GMT+02:00 Sean Conner <sean@conman.org>:
>
>>   Here: http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2015-04/msg00033.html at the bottom
>> of the message is a table of all Lua metamethods and the versions they're
>> defined for.

Side note: I did link to that very mail at the bottom of my message. :-)


> The [...] OP would doubtless dismiss that as "secondary", even though
> he [...] described it in a follow-up as "Nice table!".

Neither am I dismissing secondary documentation nor do I understand the
"even though" you managed to construct into your reply.  The table is
nice, /because/ it is missing in the manual.  When I have primary
documentation at hand already, why should I need to refer to secondary
documentation to look-up metamethods?

There are all sorts of tables in the manual already, listing reserved
keywords, operators, string patterns, special command arguments etc.
Some of which do seem redundant applying strict standards (that are not
mine).  As an example, tables listing operators could be merged.
Or description of io.open() mode arguments could just refer to stdio's
fopen().


> The table nevertheless has a few features that make it near-primary.
> 
> 1. It is complete over Lua versions from 5.1 to Lua 5.3.
> 2. It appears in the archive of a publicly available mailing list for Lua users
> regularly read and contributed to by two of the Lua designer-maintainers,
> neither of whom has found it necessary to improve on anything in it.
> 3. Constructive suggestions for such improvement are however available,
> made by [...] the OP [...] [1],

You're joking.  That stuff has been published on this list doesn't mean
Lua maintainers care to assume liability for it.  Your mail doesn't make
any sense.


Coming to what seems to be your message.

> The implacable OP
> [...]
> he himself
> [...]
> made by none less than the OP himself
> [...]
> dotting i's and crossing t's with his customary trichoschistic
> thoroughness.

That mix of direct and ironic insults is neither on-topic nor relevant
here.  Furthermore, as an attempt at an assessment of mine it is
unqualified, Dirk.  As a personal attack, it tells much about one
person, though.

Best regards,
Stephan Hennig