> for-loop variables are read only
Seems like an odd change, I wonder what the rationale is. Just making it clear to people new to the language that you can't adjust it mid-loop to change the loop count I guess?
Lua 5.5
31–40 of 138 posts
Re: Lua 5.5
#32How hard is it to put a simple hello world example on the homepage.
Because Lua's Hello World is just `print("hello, world")`, which looks a lot like Python and doesn't tell you much about actually using the language.
Re: Lua 5.5
#33OG torch strikes back?
Re: Lua 5.5
#34I feel like Lua is absolutely underrated. I just wish one of the mainstream browsers actually puts their foot down and starts supporting Lua as scripting language.
I think that's doable.
https://github.com/zacharie410/lua-browser-dom-demo
Re: Lua 5.5
#35> for-loop variables are read only Seems like an odd change, I wonder what the rationale is. Just making it clear to people new to the language that you can't adjust it mid-loop to change the loop count I guess?
From the manual:
The control variable in for loops is read only. If you need to change it, declare a local variable with the same name in the loop body.
Yes. The old code does an implicit "local x = x" for all loops, in case you modify 'x'. With the new semantics, the code only does it when you ask for it.
Re: Lua 5.5
#36> for-loop variables are read only Seems like an odd change, I wonder what the rationale is. Just making it clear to people new to the language that you can't adjust it mid-loop to change the loop count I guess?
In previous versions, you could change it mid-loop. This apparently caused some unintuitive behavior when paired with generators (e.g. `for k, v in pairs(table)`).
I haven't run into this myself, but it does make sense, and eliminating this footgun sounds like a good idea.
Re: Lua 5.5
#37I feel like Lua is absolutely underrated. I just wish one of the mainstream browsers actually puts their foot down and starts supporting Lua as scripting language.
> I feel like Lua is absolutely underrated.
This sounds like an offhand Youtube comment, I'm afraid. Underrated how? Its principal strength, easy embedding with the ability to work as an extension language, is well known in the circles where it matters. The authors never gave an impression that they'd aim to make it a language to bury all other scripting languages, which I find refreshing in the winner-take-all culture of programming language discussion. Lua is modest and works well for what it is. No need to go all grandiose.
> I just wish one of the mainstream browsers actually puts their foot down and starts supporting Lua as scripting language.
I sincerely hope not, that would be a very counterproductive dilution of effort. Browser authors already have their plate full with all other web platform problems.
Re: Lua 5.5
#38Excellent new release, now for Fennel and Love2d to update, fun times!
Only a dabbler in Love2d here but I’d expect that update to be a bit down the line. If I’m not mistaken the current Love2d version 11.5 is (mostly) tied to Lua 5.1 because of LuaJIT, though I understand some later Lua features are backported. And the changelog for the in-dev 12.0 release talks about compiling Love2d for Lua 5.4 as if it’s an optional thing.
I don’t really follow LuaJIT too closely so I’m not sure if they’re even targeting Lua 5.4 let alone 5.5. I remember reading some GitHub issue that suggested some of the design decisions in Lua 5.4 wouldn’t really support LuaJIT goals re: performance.
With that said I’ve been enjoying Love2d even with Lua 5.1 features — as a hobbyist it works just fine for me.
Would certainly appreciate any corrections by those more in-the-know though!
Re: Lua 5.5
#39> declarations for global variables
That's huge. I wish LuaJIT adopted this, or at least added a compile time flag to enable it.
Re: Lua 5.5
#40How hard is it to put a simple hello world example on the homepage.
Because Lua's Hello World is just `print("hello, world")`, which looks a lot like Python and doesn't tell you much about actually using the language.
The point is, it shouldn’t be too hard just to find an example and get a sense of the language.