Re: Inline Functions

["Peter Hill" <corwin@...>]

Peter Hill:
> Waiting for Lua 5.1 is certainly fine by me...
> And the change is not exactly earth-shattering. Rather, it is merely a
> fine tuning of the syntax... ironing out quirky irregularities... aiming
> for a more homogenous, regular & simple syntax [ie, easily understood].

Björn De Meyer:
> Yes, but why wait?

Eero Pajarre:
> Well, I suggested waiting. My reason is that I want to get a stable Lua 5
> out as soon as possible. This is so that all the Lua addons (toLua) and
> libraries can catch up with it. Language level stuff which don't brake the
> API could be tried after that.

I agree. There's no particular hurry for such changes, especially since most
won't alter the operation of existing programs at all.


Björn De Meyer:
> Could you or anyone else modify the existing parser to accept your
> definition of the syntax, so we could test the effects?

Eero Pajarre:
> I will check out if I can manage this. Although I suspect that I might not
> like the change ;-)

> What I personally would like to add to Lua is "compile time" error
> checking and "compile time" optimisation support.
>
> I put quotes there, because I understand that both of these are
> practically impossible in dynamic language like Lua, but I am thinking of
> possible add ons outside of Lua core which would enable these for code
> which might be specially annotated. I will let you know if I come up with
> something which can be done.

What sort of things do you have in mind?

*cheers*
Peter Hill.