lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

>I find it short to say you don't see the need. 

I'm not sure how much more I need to add. Anyway...

I find I do not have default values often in functions that I write in Lua,
or in other languages that do support default values explicitly. I'm not
sure why this is, but perhaps it's because I think default values are often
indicators of what "Writing Solid Code" calls a "candy machine interface".

Even if I did use default values a lot, the value of the proposed syntactic
sugar seems quite low - it doesn't really help reduce errors, and doesn't
increase clarity significantly(in my view, anyway).

I think the real value of such a feature comes when the programming language
or environment allows the developer to see the signature of the function
(e.g. with Visual Studio's Intellisense) - i.e. then it is a documentation
convenience to have it in the signature declaration, but Lua doesn't have
function signature declarations.

On the "default" keyword, I'm not a fan of long names for variables local to
a function; depending on the context "default" may well be a reasonable

More generally, I'm also not a fan of adding more keywords/syntactic sugar
to Lua, unless there are some very compelling reasons.

Lua is mostly a "there's one way to do it" language, on the opposite end of
the spectrum from, say, Perl, where "there's more than one way to do it" is
an accepted principle.

Both approaches have value (I'm not as down on Perl as some members of this
list), but they're different, but a mixture can be confusing and complex. I
like the spare, almost austere feel of Lua's syntax, and I think it should
be sugared only very seldom.

Long enough? :)