Re: explicit mode

[Sean Conner <sean@...>]

It was thus said that the Great Soni L. once stated:
> 
> 
> On 10/05/16 01:44 PM, Viacheslav Usov wrote:
> >On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Michal Kottman 
> ><michal.kottman@gmail.com <mailto:michal.kottman@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> The "mechanism" for your "policy" is strict.lua or any other 
> >implementation thereof.
> >
> >Not really.
> >
> >My policy is to guarantee that there are /no/ problems related to 
> >mistyped identifiers. Not just /this/ time I run my program, but 
> >/every/ time I run it.
> >
> >As far as I can tell, I /cannot/ represent that as a user-defined 
> >"policy", so your justification is not valid.
> >
> >I know that I could achieve that by using a language /different /from 
> >Lua. But I'd like to achieve that in Lua, and so I want to to 
> >understand why it is not possible.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >V.
> So in other words you want explicit upvalue syntax? Upvalues as part of 
> function signatures? Yeah me too! But I want it with defined order so my 
> loadx lib[1] becomes more useful.

  I think he wants something like:

	global x	-- define a global x
	function foo(a,b)
	  local c	-- define a local variable
	  c = a * b + y	-- compile time error---y not defined
	end

  To me, upvalues as part of a function signature reminds me of making
exceptions part of the function signature in Java---it may be a nice idea to
be explicit about such things, but it gets annoying quite fast (and you get
aorund it by subclassing RuntypeException).  It would also seem to be
repeating yourself in code quite often.

  -spc