Re: Function definitions in table constructors

[Edgar Toernig <froese@...>]

Miles Bader wrote:
>
> Mark Hamburg <mhamburg@adobe.com> writes:
> >> so table-constructor methods have a lightweight syntax.
> >
> > But to really make it pay off one needs some way to also remove the need for
> > a comma after the end.
> 
> Yeah, I've always found the need for "," or ";" inside table
> constructors inside tables annoying...  Do things become overly
> ambiguous without them though?

I have that in my Lua dialect and there are some pitfalls but
I never stepped into one.  I usually use commas but omit them
when they are annoying, i.e. after function statements.
IMHO, if you can manage the different precedences of + and * you
can handle this, too.
 
Excerpt from http://goron.de/~froese/sol/Diffs2Lua

---snip---
      - Commas and semicolons are optional but may be used to
        avoid ambiguities.  There's no semantic difference
        between a comma and a semicolon.

            { a=1  b=2  c=3, d=4; e=5;,; 32 f, (1+2)*3 }

        Be careful when a field is followed by a string constant,
        a table constructor, or a parenthesized or negated
        expression:

            { f    "foo" }   vs   { f, "foo" }
            { {}   {} }      vs   { {}, {} }
            { a=1  (2+3) }   vs   { a=1, (2+3) }
            { a=1  -2 }      vs   { a=1, -2 }

        It's recommended to be not too economic with commas ;-)

      - Named functions may be used as rec-fields:

            {
              function foo() .... end
              function bar() .... end
            }
---snip---

Ciao, ET.