lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

On Sep 14, 2009, at 5:26 AM, steve donovan wrote:

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
<> wrote:
One important reason for not having "set:values" is that it'd be sugar
for "function (...) return set:values(...) end" and this would imply
the creation of a hidden closure.

Yes, it did feel like an incompatible proposal.

So, is there some support for Mark Hamburg's closure sugar in Rio ;) ?

To be fair, though I'm not sure to whom, I think someone promoted it before I did. ;-)

But the full details of my proposal included:

1. Binds early.
2. Binds strongly. (Weak closures are a separate implementation problem.) 3. Only generates a closure when not used at a call site though this should be purely an optimization.

The piece of syntax I will take credit for promoting since I don't think I'd seen it elsewhere before is:


and in this case:


Thereby allowing the method name to be an expression while at the same time not forcing the repetition of obj in an expansion of the colon operator.

I believe this is actually moderately easy to implement as a patch on the current Lua implementation. (I'd have to go find my notes on how to do so.)