Re: Cryptic OOP syntax

[David Given <dg@...>]

On Thursday 27 January 2005 09:47, PA wrote:
[...]
> Lua is just fine as it is right now.
>
> With a touch of creativity, one can shape Lua in any forms one wants
> to. I personally don't feel the need for any additional syntactical
> sugar of any sort to achieve my own devious OOP needs and wants.

I agree. There's enough functionality there to implement anything you like, 
any way you like. Witness, for example Raffaele Salmaso's extremely 
interesting OO system using closures (so that you can call methods with '.' 
instead of ':'); this gets you pretty much everything you want from an OO 
syntax without needing any core support.

I'd suggest that adding any more hard-coded support for OOisms merely risks 
taking Lua away from its core strengths of being *really small* without 
actually adding much benefit.

A feature enhancement *I'd* prefer to see is to have the byte-code language 
nailed down and properly specified, so I can generate byte-code directly and 
be reasonably sure of having it run; but that's only really because I'm sick 
and twisted.

-- 
+- David Given --McQ-+ 
|  dg@cowlark.com    | "The god of the Old Testament was actually a TRIBE
| (dg@tao-group.com) | OF RENEGADE SPACE CANNIBALS." --- Robert McElwaine
+- www.cowlark.com --+