Re: Lua is not skin deep

["steve donovan" <steve.j.donovan@...>]

Well, my apologies for hitting a nerve - but it was not intended as a
language holy war thing ;) Personally, I'm not a curly-brace bigot,
and wouldn't suggest such syntactical changes for a real project. I
was musing about the 'skinnable' concept, and thinking about if one
had particularly demanding users who can't see 'end' in the same way
they see '}'. Well, they can be obliged.

Theoretically this is a superficial transformation, but I take the
point about people using surface syntax for deeper semantic clues.

And yes, it was meant to be taken with a pinch of salt...

peace,
steve d.

On 10/30/07, Ketmar Dark <ketmar@ic.km.ua> wrote:
> hello, Rob Kendrick <lua-l@nun.org.uk>.
>
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:23:48 +0000
> Rob Kendrick <lua-l@nun.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > > it's NOT Lua. it's bastardized Python vomiting JS.
> > The only real Pythonism here is "def" - everything else is simply
> > allowing { to be then/do and } be end.
> and the only really good thing (if "def" really means "local function").
>
> > It's certainly Lua in all but appearance, which is what the OP is
> > getting at.  And beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
> humans reads words, not punctuation (or spaces, as pythoners %-).
>
> ps: no more answers from me. it's just another holy war. %-)
>