[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: locals again
- From: rw20@...
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:30:49 -0500 (EST)
Thanks for the well thought out reply. I'll try to look through your
code this afternoon.
> Now imagine the mess of having to write
> global fgcolor="red"
> global bgcolor="white"
> global tolerance=0.001
> This seems quite verbose and useless, from the point of view of the end user.
> So the decision of having globals by default makes sense to us ;-) and
> we don't feel we need to change it.
> Moreover, we cannot change it without breaking *lots* of Lua code.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm suggesting a change that would only change
global access within a "method...end'' block. It wouldn't break any code,
but it would make Lua more capable of supporting different programming
methods and goals. I really love Lua and respect all the design choices
that went into it. For my needs, having a default-to-local access block
for functions would be of great help. I'd add it to the language myself,
but I haven't yet been able to unravel the mystery that is the parser.
To summarize my suggestion:
1. within a method...end block, all variable access and assignment is
assumed to be local
2. the global keyword (only needed inside method...end) means, the
very next word is a global variable name
Seems simple enough to me. If I could get some pointers on how to add it
myself (is there a lex file we don't have?), I'd be happy to produce an
experimental Lua (not for distribution of course) so we could try it
> Really? Do semi-technical users prefer/understand local variables??
I should have called them technical people who aren't serious
programmers. The type who run plasma etchers and program RPN calculators.