Re: Next Version of Lua?

[Olivier Hamel <evilpineapple@...>]

Duncan Cross wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Olivier Hamel<evilpineapple@cox.net> wrote:
>   
> > Duncan Cross wrote:
> >     
> > > Er, yes. Good point.
> > >
> > > Maybe it could expand parenthesised expressions as well, so (...)... ?
> > > Is that not quite as bad?
> > >
> > > -Duncan
> > >
> > >       
> > Doesn't really help, maybe a C-style typecast-ish approach?
> > (...)FunctionThatReturnsARidiculousNumberOfValues()
> >
> > I think that looks somewhat better, what do you think?
> >
> > Olivier
> >
> >     
>
> One problem with that is that it would be odd if it didn't work with a
> literal list of values (logically, I mean - there would be no actual
> reason to, if you have a literal list of values you should just insert
> them into the enclosing list directly), but:
>
> (...)(a,b,c)
>
> - already means something, it is a function call to the first value in
> the vararg list, taking the parameters a,b,c.
>
> -Duncan
>
>   
Ironically I thought of doing exactly that, but I decided that the extra 
parentheses were excessive and didn't put them in. But now that I look 
at your sample & argument I'm more then willing to accept that as a 
syntax change to Lua. Seems elegant enough to me, no?

Olivier