Re: [With Apologies] LPeg Lua-Variant Language

[Coda Highland <chighland@...>]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 2:19 PM, William Ahern
<william@25thandclement.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 07:56:01AM +0200, Dirk Laurie wrote:
>> 2014-08-23 7:12 GMT+02:00 Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@trms.com>:
>> > The description and mission that is stated for Lua seems out of step with
>> > LPeg. I say this because of LPeg's size, relative to Lua and because it's
>> > not minimalistic, as Lua is. (Although it is minimalistic, compared with
>> > other tools in specialized use cases.)
>> >
>> > If it's at all interesting to the authors: if Lua were imagined as a
>> > replacement for Pearl, including LPeg in place of regex, what might it look
>> > like?
>>
>> Assuming you mean Perl. I #honestly %have &no ^idea !how @Lua
>> $might ?then ~have looked lke.
>
> Sigil hater?
>
> I never understood why so many people* are for strong typing on the one
> hand, but violently oppose the use of sigil notation on the other. It seems
> like a contradiction.
>
> * I'm not necessarily speaking of your preferences.

Makes sense to me -- sigils are essentially language-enforced
Hungarian notation, minus the mnemonics that are Hungarian notation's
claimed advantage. It renders information about the variable
everywhere it appears that could just as easily be seen at its point
of declaration. Furthermore, in Perl, the different sigils actually
refer to the same variable in different ways, which aren't obvious
from the syntax, requiring you to understand the sigils before you can
even start, and using the wrong sigil means the program completely
misbehaves.

/s/ Adam