Re: Forward function declarations - relocal command

[Rena <hyperhacker@...>]

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Kevin Martin <kev82@khn.org.uk> wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2012, at 23:58, Rena wrote:
>
> local f
> local function g() print(f()) end
> f = function() return 42 end
>
> Yes, it's pretty trivial in cases like that, but my use case is a bit more
> complicated. That is actually what I have been doing, and what caught me out
> today, and prompted by to email was when I did this - admittedly without
> thinking:
>
> local f
> local function g()
> --calls f
> end
>
> local f
> local function h()
> --also calls f
> end
>
> function f()
> --does something
> end
>
>
> My thoughts were (roughly in order)
>
> 1) Get rid of the 'local f' above the definition of h
> Problem - things would break if I ever moved h above g.
>
> 2) Creating all required forward declarations at the top of the block
> Problem - No good if a function that doesn't require a forward declaration
> now, requires one later (in a couple of months when someone comes back to
> the code)
>
> 3) Create forward declarations for every function
> Minor Problem - at the function definition, don't know whether it's a local
> function or not
> Minor Problem - Have to modify two different code sites to create a function
>
> 4) Put all local functions in a local table
> Minor Problem - Speed
> Minor Problem - Many levels of nested scope would require well named tables
>
> 5) relocal command
> Problem - Requires parser modification
>
> I really don't like 1 and 2, especially as it may not be me coming back to
> the code. I didn't think there was much between 3 and 4, but I felt 4 was
> cleaner - which is what I've coded for now.

Whenever you're worried that someone later editing the code will have
trouble understanding it, or won't be aware of non-obvious rules that
need to be followed, add a comment.

-- 
Sent from my Game Boy.