Re: Did they mean "." or ":"?

[Christopher Eykamp <chris@...>]

On 2/16/2010 7:51 PM, Asko Kauppi wrote:
> A better solution may be to _not_ use the : syntax at all.
>
> I've recently crafted an API for non-programmers, and decided to make 
> the whole object system using dot notation. Exactly for the reason of 
> not confusing the users on when they need dot, when colon. It's always 
> dot.
> This is performed by sending the 'this' object as upvalue to all the 
> methods. It may give a slight runtime penalty but I doubt it's even 
> measurable. Can show you sample if you are interested, but the 
> technique has been mentioned on the list before.
> -asko
Hi Asko,

If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to see a sample.  Your approach may work 
better for me than some of the other proposals here because I'm using 
Lunar to do my binding, and I do not have direct access to the object 
without modifying Lunar, which I'd prefer not to do.
I do have some reservations about teaching programmers bad habits, but 
I'm not sure that that's what your system does.  I do see immense appeal 
in eliminating a very common and difficult to detect error.
Thanks,

Chris