Re: Shorthand for appending to a table (was Re: 5.2 feature list?)

[Tomas <tomas@...>]

> Actually no-one was arguing it should go faster, merely that it should be 
> easier to type.  There are two legitimate concerns as I see it:
>
> 1) when t is a long name.  Could be particularly embarrassing if you misspell 
> it (personally I don't like long names, but hey)
	The problem is not with the operation, but with the name of the
table.  If it bothers you why don't you simply change it to a short one?

> 2) when t is a more complex expression, eg: f(x)[#? + 1] = value.
	The problem here is not with the append operation also.  It shouldn't
be clear/legible to separate the "more complex expression" into two small
and readable ones?  Something like: local t=f(x); t[#t+1]=value
	In both cases I think the discussion is diverging to a kind of
competition of tastes: "I prefer this" X "I prefer that" :-(

> I'm always very loath to suggest or support more syntax, but how about if '#' 
> on its on in an expression inside [] were to mean the length of the table 
> being indexed.  So you could go:
>
> t[#+1] = value
>
> It's pretty clear, and almost syntactically unambiguous.
	And one-character less (to use this subjective argument) than
the current (and I think unquestionably legible, clear, unambigous...):

t[#t+1] = value

	Regards,
		Tomas