Re: Local as table

[Miles Bader <miles@...>]

James Graves <james.c.graves.jr@gmail.com> writes:
> One of my goals with this design for an import statement is to
> eliminate a lot of the boilerplate code you normally need to achieve
> what we're talking about.
>
> I'd like to just have an import statement at the top of the module,
> and a return at the end.  The exported functions could just be
> declared without the 'local' keyword, and the non-exported functions
> with 'local'.  There would not be a need to build a table to return
> the exported functions.
>
> It could be more concise than how it is normally done now.

That particular boilerplate, though, is so minimal, that I'm not sure
it's worth much effort to eliminate.

Moreover, I think explicitly using the module name in exported function
declarations increases program clarity, so not doing so might even be a
considered a _bad_ thing...

e.g. 

   local blarg = {}

   function blarg.foo () ... end

   function blarg.oink () ... end

   return blargh

Is _more clear_ than a version which leaves out the "blarg." bits.

-miles

-- 
永日の　澄んだ紺から　永遠へ