[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: RE: Functional objects
- From: "Bilyk, Alex" <ABilyk@...>
- Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:48:43 -0700
So, basically per the proposal below the following would be equivalent to one another
print : hello
It feels to me that the first one is somewhat counter intuitive. In addition how would I use the first form to make it equivalent to
print : :) -- ???
If it doesn't than it is a severe limitation on what strings can be used with it.
From: Rici Lake [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 11:34 AM
To: Lua list
Subject: Re: Functional objects
On 22-Sep-04, at 12:33 AM, Mark Hamburg wrote:
> PiL finishes the chapter on object-oriented programming with the rather
> Scheme-like approach of implementing objects as function closures.
> Would it
> make sense to define obj:msg( ... ) as meaning obj( "msg", ... ) if
> obj were
> a function? This has the downside of meaning that the syntax is no
> simply sugar, but it had already ceased to be treated as such in the
Now that I've thought about this since the first time you suggested it,
it seems more reasonable to me. I find it particularly attractive for
the case where obj is a coroutine.
To answer Alex's concern (and the second part of the suggestion which I
think is unworkable), the compiler does not need to know what type of
object is being self-called, because it simply injects a self call
opcode, which causes the VM to turn (object, method) into
(object[method], object). A very simple change to that opcode would
handle the case where object was a function (i.e., do nothing instead
of reporting an error).
However, it does create an ambiguity in the case where object is either
a table with a __call metamethod or a userdata with both __call and
__index metamethods. Perhaps this is not serious: this could be dealt
with by simply documenting that gettable (if it exists) takes priority,
even if it fails to find the key.