Re: Function definitions in table constructors

["Alex Davies" <alex.mania@...>]

It's quite an easy change to the parser, see: 
http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2008-01/msg00525.html

The patch is a little different though - for my oo system I prefer to have 
implicit selfs inside table functions, just look for the comment inside 
function "funcfield" to alter this behaviour. I think really it should be in 
the core, given that as original poster said it's supposed to be just 
syntactic sugar.

Oh, the patch also makes commas optional following an inline function.

- Alex

(P.S. my emails been really unreliable, this message didn't appear on the 
list hours ago when I first tried, so I'm really hoping I won't flood the 
list when whatever's causing the problem unclogs)

On Thu Feb 21 10:56 , 'Mark Meijer' <meijer78@gmail.com> sent:

> I've been wondering the same thing, especially as "function foo()" is
> just syntactic sugar for "foo = function()". But I'm guessing it has
> something to do with how the parser is built.
>
> I do think it would be nice to allow it. Given the fact that keywords
> (such as "function") are not allowed as names (i.e. string keys using
> the "table.key" or "table:key" syntax), I think it shouldn't be much
> of a problem for the parser.