Re: Some enhancements in table initializations

["Juris Kalnins" <juris@...>]

> Nevermind, I misunderstood what you meant by "statements". You mean it
> could be interpreted as "a = b; [c]:d()"? That's a good point, I guess
> there's no getting around that one.

If there was a simple rule to the effect that "if sequence of statements
can be interpreted as a single statement, then it is a single statement",
there would be no ambiguity.

I wish there was something similar to that stated in the docs, it
would give the language more solid feel, even if not changing anything.
Currently, figuring out how exactly Lua grammar is not ambiguous and
why one can omit ';' is actually quite a puzzle.

In a recent discussion it was mentioned about change in 5.2work3 that  
parses
f(x)
(y)(z)
as a single statement, instead of raising parse error. Is there any other
case left where Lua doesn't follow such rule?