lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

On 11/10/2010 8:04 PM, steve donovan wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:52 PM, KHMan wrote:
If quoting and non-quoting are both valid and have different behaviours,
then it is a format fail.

Absolutely; I apologize for confusing the issue.

A variant on Luz' proposal is very readable:

   one = 1,
   two = 2,
   three = cond(3,THREE_ALLOWED),
   four = 4

where cond is simply

function cond(val,condn)
    if condn then return val end

Sorry, I wasn't paying real close attention to the actual source codes :-)

Still, I can't help but feel there is something fundamentally wanting from the intentions of this configuration format.

It's similar to the intricacies of the huge number of C #if #defines et al. needed to adapt to multi-platform differences. If this is the case, a complex 'expression' in a kind of Lua style may not be so readable after all.

Maybe a better question would be, what is an example of a worst-case complexity version of the original configuration snippet? Working on simple cases may be misleading.

Not sure how best to solve the problem of adapting configurations to a multitude of slightly different conditions. Has C managed to solve it? It kinda depends really on how much of this kind of complexity a user will force into a configuration script -- two or three levels of something awkward would make one barf...

Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia