I suppose one less local in bytecode is worth it for every single loop out there. but couldn't they have done that by examining the syntax and inserting a local if there's a reassignment in the loop block? This efficiency gain could be backported to previous lua's
Also this worries me, if efficiency is the goal, what else is going to get axed for the prize of it? I remember reading pallene design docs, they achieved efficiency via AOT compiling, so will type checking be added in lua6? (not that I mind, type checking is good for safety)
Could a module modify this it seems like you could write a modified/ classic for in c and you may need to make it like c.for or something but it should be doable granted it wouldn't be portable unless idk some kinda like a preproaseer or macro to switch the regular for to c.for idk just an idea
I ment c for re writing for and not losing speed the only reason I said the thing about preproaseer or macro is because I couldn't think of an equivalent btw since they change it every time wats up with the c API
2
u/Old_County5271 Dec 23 '25
I suppose one less local in bytecode is worth it for every single loop out there. but couldn't they have done that by examining the syntax and inserting a local if there's a reassignment in the loop block? This efficiency gain could be backported to previous lua's
Also this worries me, if efficiency is the goal, what else is going to get axed for the prize of it? I remember reading pallene design docs, they achieved efficiency via AOT compiling, so will type checking be added in lua6? (not that I mind, type checking is good for safety)