Re: Cryptic OOP syntax

[PA <petite.abeille@...>]

On Jan 27, 2005, at 04:09, Mike Pall wrote:

> So IMHO instead of discussing everyone's favourite OOP style and what
> kind of syntactic sugar is needed to support it, I suggest collecting
> and categorizing the needed changes to the core. Then invent a good
> meta-mechanism that covers most of these cases (and maybe some more)
> and implement it.

I wholeheartedly concur with Mike's "State of the Union" address :)

Lua is just fine as it is right now.

With a touch of creativity, one can shape Lua in any forms one wants 
to. I personally don't feel the need for any additional syntactical 
sugar of any sort to achieve my own devious OOP needs and wants.

At the moment, I'm quite happy simply using a combination of technics 
highlighted by Roberto in Chapter 15.2 and 16.4 of Programming in Lua. 
That, in addition to a minimal set of organization principals, gives me 
everything I need from an OOP standpoint: class and instance methods, 
proper inheritance as well as full encapsulation.

Of course, it would be nice to "formalize" the above packaging 
conventions one way or another, if only for my own convenience sake. 
But this doesn't necessarily imply changing anything in Lua itself. At 
the moment, I'm more looking toward integrating something like LuaLint 
in my "build" process to automatically check, validate and enforce my 
own made up OOP conventions in addition to Lua's core syntax itself.

In summary, Lua, "as is", greatly satisfies for my deviant OOP 
fetishism :))

And now lets all sing along 8^)

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/r/rolling-stones/117852.html

Cheers

--
PA
http://alt.textdrive.com/