[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 15:47:11 +0100
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 15:42, Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@majumdar.org.uk> wrote:
> But if you say:
>
> local resource x = 0
>
> Then x is a variable, and resource is a qualifier.
>
> Does that make sense?
No, because that's a valid statement in Lua 5.3 that means something
different. So my point stands: this proposal is a
backwards-incompatible change that affects existing code.
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>
- Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?, Matthew Wild
- Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?, Dibyendu Majumdar
- Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?, Matthew Wild
- Re: Syntactical ugliness - does it matter?, Dibyendu Majumdar