On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Alexander Gladysh
<agladysh@gmail.com> wrote:
We, Lua Alchemy development team, just released new version: 0.2.
http://code.google.com/p/lua-alchemy/
Thank you! This is a very exciting project.
Main feature of this release is syntax sugar. If in 0.1 you had to write
as3.call(myvar, "someCall", param1, param2)
Now you may make calls naturally:
myvar.someCall(param1, param2)
Now, this is an interesting thing - when you say "naturally", I guess you mean "naturally for an ActionScript 3 object", but of course the way you (usually) call a method on a Lua object is to use the colon rather than a dot. It's fine if the object is one that is only ever going to be used by Lua code that knows what it's dealing with is an as3 object, but in more complex uses of Lua Alchemy I can see situations where you want to call methods on an object without knowing whether it was implemented in Lua or ActionScript.
What do other people think? Is it worth having a redundant first parameter for compatibility with Lua objects in these situations, or preferable to use "object.method" instead of "object:method" if it's actually internally more natural to do so?
-Duncan
