Re: Colon syntax minor inelegance

[steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:52 PM, Peter Cawley <lua@corsix.org> wrote:
> argument list, but this is ugly from a language design point of view,
> as then "foo:bar(...)" becomes a special-case of redefining the
> semantics of something which is already valid syntax.

So the question would be: what is more ugly, having to live with
different implementations of foo:bar and foo:bar(...), or not having
any meaning for foo:bar ?

Having the auto-closure available would be useful when specifying
callbacks to object methods.

steve d,