[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Inline Functions
- From: Björn De Meyer <bjorn.demeyer@...>
- Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 23:30:54 +0100
Peter Hill wrote:
> Waiting for Lua 5.1 is certainly fine by me... Lua 5.0 being a "beta".
> And the change is not exactly earth-shattering. Rather, it is merely a fine
> tuning of the syntax... ironing out quirky irregularities... aiming for a
> more homogenous, regular & simple syntax [ie, easily understood].
Yes, but why wait?
> As far as homogenising changes go, I'd move all atomic items (not just
> "function") out of "exp" and into "prefixexp" where they belong. Why, you
> ask? "123()" hardly seems meaningful, let's just outlaw it and we don't have
> to worry about numbers acting as functions. However, since Lua is not
> statically typed, since "a()" is syntactically valid, and since "a" can be a
> number (or literal string, or function closure, or nil / true / false) then
> such a contruct is indeed valid up to evaluation time (and is potentially
> trapped). So why generate two different errors for the same action?
Interesting. Could you or anyone else modify the existing parser
to accept your definition of the syntax, so we could test the effects?
"No one knows true heroes, for they speak not of their greatness." --
Björn De Meyer