Talk:Global Functions

_G is no longer available. Is this not correct? ^{Camoy • Contribs (September 23 2010)}

It works fine if you put _G. before writing to and reading from it. --SNCPlay42 21:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

_G is available. And it is functional.

_G.x=9

repeat wait() until _G.x; local x=_G.x; print(x)

^{Posted by blocco (talk) on Sep 23, 2010 (Thursday) at 21:20 (UTC) [Discuss format]}

Are you serious blocco? ^{Camoy • Contribs (September 23 2010)}

Can you do this:

Example

_G.foo = "bar"
print(foo) -- bar

^{Camoy • Contribs (September 23 2010)}

No, that's the only functionality that's removed. --SNCPlay42 21:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I am serious, and _G is functional. I never said anything about being fully functional. It's definitely functional, though.

^{Posted by blocco (talk) on Sep 23, 2010 (Thursday) at 21:23 (UTC) [Discuss format]}

They made _G like the shared table except its named _G? Is the shared table still up? ^{Camoy • Contribs (September 23 2010)}

Yes it is. --SNCPlay42 21:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for documentation purposes, what was the date in which _G was removed, and what was the date that it returned in this new form? Also, what was the official worry about _G? ^{Camoy • Contribs (September 23 2010)}

I think it never actually went, you could always use it like that. The only period when I think it wouldn't was when the "_G = nil" fix worked.

The worry is that you can use it to change what the secure scripts did. --SNCPlay42 21:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)