>From what I remember, extending the 'in' keyword was originaly
propositioned in this form only:
local a, b, c in some_table
I consider it an advance to make it more general for expanding a
vararg from a table without an intermediate table:
The expression: a, b, c in some_table -- which can appear in any expression
Making this syntactic sugar:
local a, b, c in some_table -- parsed as: local a, b, c = a, b, c in
some_table becomes: local a, b, c = some_table.a, some_table.b,
some_table.c
While still allowing people the potential to prefix local imports:
local pre_a, pre_b, pre_c = a, b, c in some_table
A new question: Should only valid identifiers be used before the
'in'? Or do we allow identifiers and objects?
local t = {}
some_table[t] = 'cat'
local a = t in some_table
(Do we index from some_table by identfier name or by what it
potentially references?)
I vote by identfier names only, I would see the 2nd as being somewhat confusing.
