[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: get_local() and "(for index/limit/stop)"
- From: Asko Kauppi <asko.kauppi@...>
- Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 21:14:06 +0300
And if one (= Lua authors, that is :) made it so that a *read* of '_'
causes an error (instead of giving 'nil') everything would be fine. If
someone really used that value somewhere, it'd get trapped right away.
18.9.2004 kello 18:27, David Given kirjoitti:
Rici Lake wrote:
In any event, the compiler should not need clues like this. It is
easy enough to tell if the value of a local variable is not going to
be used, regardless of its name. That is usually a programming error,
of course: my Lua linter has a specific hook in it to avoid flagging
unused local _'s in order to allow this idiom.
Sure, but the important is not to make life easier for the compiler,
but to make life easier for the programmer. Why should I have to
allocate a new variable, which means coming up with a name that
doesn't conflict with any other names in my block, just to put a
return parameter in that I'm not going to use? Far better to have
syntax that says explicitly that I'm not going to use it. The _ idiom
does *part* of this, but it can occasionally trip you up because it
doesn't do what you expect it to do.
[insert interesting .sig here]