[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Table dot number?
- From: Tom N Harris <telliamed@...>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 22:02:37 -0400
On 10/28/2011 04:09 AM, HyperHacker wrote:
This has bit me a few times, when writing functions to parse other languages:
function funcs.foo(...) doThings() end --OK!
function funcs.for(...) doStuff() end --Invalid!
function funcs['for']() doStuff() end --Also invalid! (a function
can't be defined using this syntax)
The only way is to write:
funcs['for'] = function(...) doStuff() end --OK, but harder to read,
especially alongside those like the first line.
Could these restrictions not be lifted? An expression such as [[
blah.for i = 1,5 ]] wouldn't be syntactically valid, so there doesn't
appear to be any ambiguity to worry about. Especially I don't
understand why line 3 isn't acceptable.
I patched the parser to read NAME as a 'namelit' which is parsed as:
namelit -> NAME | reserved word | '[' String ']'
In my case, it was to allow illegal characters in a function name, such
This is just coddling coders who don't want to type _G["Check?"] =
function(...) end. Well, you can also use it for locals, but then we're
encouraging bad habits. So I would not want to see it become part of
Lua. Or at least, don't accept reserved words.