[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: RFC: "in place" return from imperative function calls
- From: Sean Conner <sean@...>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 00:45:09 -0400
It was thus said that the Great Griffin Rock once stated:
> Proposed ability to 'mark' an argument in an imperative function call to
> transform it into an assignment statement. Can be implemented as a purely
> syntactic translation with no change to the behaviour of the function or
> interpreter. Syntax below uses unary '&' like c pointers and c++ reference
'&' is used in Lua 5.3+ as the logical AND operator, so it might be a poor
choice. Perhaps '@' (the AT symbol) is better.
> examples of use:
> "trim(x, & veryLongName, z)" => "veryLongName = trim(x, veryLongName, z)"
> "string.gsub(& line, '%s+', ' ')" => "line = string.gsub(line, '%s+', ' ')"
> probably only useful on locals, since you can already "manually" translate
> "trim(& veryLongName[complexLValue])" => "zap(trim, veryLongName, complexLValue)"
Well, another pain point is
veryLongNmae[complexLValue] = veryLongName[complexLValue] + 1
so if the intent is to somehow reference these, you could probably extend
the syntax with the following:
veryLongName = trim(x,@,z)
line = @:gsub('%s+',' ')
veryLongName[complexLValue] = @ + 1
This still shows the assignment, which in my book is still important. And
veryLongName,complexLValue = @2,@1
where, in this case:
@1 = veryLongName
@2 = complexLValue
I'm not sure if I like it though. Part of me loves the idea of not having
to type "veryLongName[complexLValue]" several times (avoiding typos), but
the other half of me keeps saying "You hate Perl and it's implicit magic ..."