Re: simply question about syntatic sugar

[Rodrigo Azevedo <rodrigoams@...>]

Wonderful! Many thanks. I was working on a patch but my C skills were not enough.

In the end,  I'm not completetly insane at all.

Em 08/06/2015 03:20, "Thomas Jericke" <tjericke@indel.ch> escreveu:

On 06/06/2015 11:33 PM, Rodrigo Azevedo 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

I have made a power patch that includes this. You can download it from here: http://lua-users.org/wiki/ThomasJericke

If you have made some test with it, I would appreciate some feedback if it works as supposed.
--
Thomas