From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 669E72F53D for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 01:15:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XwR5ztLm6ALH for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 01:15:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp34.i.mail.ru (smtp34.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id 9CBAD2F501 for ; Sun, 9 Jun 2019 01:15:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2019 08:15:28 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH 5/5] swim: expose Lua triggers on member update Message-ID: <20190609051528.GR31327@atlas> References: <12b8ea76f7c1cd100a80ddcea3c29d20354e073e.1559433539.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org> <20190608142753.GJ31327@atlas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-post: List-Archive: To: Vladislav Shpilevoy Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org * Vladislav Shpilevoy [19/06/08 22:52]: > This is exactly what I was trying to avoid with all these > mask metamethods. I want to be able in future to add old values > of updated member attributes, if it will be necessary. It will > be easy without breaking the old code, if from now we will return > just an abstract 'events' object with some metamethods. > > Also probably in future we will not return the events as a mask. > So I don't want to expose swim_ev_mask to Lua API. > > I've fixed the documentation with 'events' -> 'event' rename. > Just treat the object as a complex event from multiple parts. OK, but what if I want to test a combination of events? With masks, I could just pass a bit.bor() mask to the caller, without I have to invoke :is..() multiple times. Anyway, LGTM after rename. -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia