Re: simply question about syntatic sugar

[Rena <hyperhacker@...>]

On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Rodrigo Azevedo <rodrigoams@gmail.com> wrote:
> 3.4.10 – Function Calls
>
> The form
>
> functioncall ::= prefixexp ‘:’ Name args
>
> Arguments have the following syntax:
>
> args ::= ‘(’ [explist] ‘)’
> args ::= tableconstructor
> args ::= LiteralString
>
> can be used to call "methods". A call v:name(args) is syntactic sugar for
> v.name(v,args), except that v is evaluated only once.
>
> -------------------
>
> Let v be a usardata with a unary method, then
>
> v:abs() is a syntatic sugar for v.abs(v)
> v:reduce() is a syntatic sugar for v.reduce(v)
>
> etc
>
> This notation is very unpleasant. There is a problem if this behaviour of
> function calls
>
> v:abs is a syntativ sugar for v.abs(v)
> v:reduce is a syntatic sugar for v.reduce(v)
>
> was valid?
>
> If not, I really appreciate this new flavor.
>
> --
> Rodrigo Azevedo Moreira da Silva

You want `v:abs` to mean the same as `v.abs(v)`? That seems a bit
unusual. What I've seen in some dialects is that it automatically
creates a closure; i.e. `f = v:abs` means the same as `f =
function(...) return v:abs(...) end`.

-- 
Sent from my Game Boy.