Re: Extensible infix operators

[Rici Lake <lua@...>]

On 30-Nov-06, at 1:44 PM, John Hind wrote:

> However at a formal (rather than implementation) level would using an 
> unadorned token really cause ambiguities? It would be neater without a 
> special syntax and it should surely be possible to disambiguate this 
> given that the compiler knows that the token refers to a function (or 
> not).

How does the compiler know that?

function apply(x, y)
  return x(y)
end