[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?
- From: Matthew Wild <mwild1@...>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 15:07:56 +0100
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 12:53, szbnwer@gmail.com <szbnwer@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ryan Ford:
> > I'm sure this would break the current syntax though as you would be initializing the local "resource" and assigning a new value to the global "x"
>
> if `resource` is a keyword, then it wont mess with anything, and no
> new stuff will be usable in older versions, no matter what.
As the maintainer of a >50k-line Lua codebase that extensively uses
local variables named "resource", I beg to differ with the "it won't
mess with anything" assertion.
It's easy to argue over the "ugliness" of the current alpha-rc1
syntax, but let's not forget that it has merits too.
Regards,
Matthew
- References:
- Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?, Dibyendu Majumdar
- Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?, Pavel
- Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?, Oliver Kroth
- Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?, Ulrich Schmidt
- Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?, Sergey Zakharchenko
- Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?, Rodrigo Azevedo
- Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?, Egor Skriptunoff
- Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?, Dibyendu Majumdar
- Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?, Ryan Ford
- Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?, szbnwer@<a href="/cgi-bin/echo.cgi?gmail.com">...</a>