RE: Are parenthesis-free calls a Good? (was Re: patch: C-style stringlexing)
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: RE: Are parenthesis-free calls a Good? (was Re: patch: C-style stringlexing)
- From: "Jerome Vuarand" <jerome.vuarand@...>
- Date: 2008年1月31日 11:20:26 -0500
Alexander Gladysh wrote:
> I personally often use such calls in my micro-DSLs. Like this:
>
> foo "name"
> {
> bar "bar";
> baz "baz";
> }
>
> I find this style to be shorter and to better express
> "declarativeness" of the code. Also it is arguable simpler for
> non-programmers to comprehend in some cases.
>
> "Non-weird" equivalent would have too many braces to my taste:
>
> local tmp = foo("name")
> tmp({bar("bar1"); baz("baz")})
>
> I believe Lua would be a bit less elegant without parenthesis-free
> calls.
I use similar syntax to describe userdata structures, and automatically
generate C structs, the bindings to Lua and the
serialization/loading/saving. It makes my struct definition looks very
close to what it would look like in C. Without parenthesis-free calls it
would make it much less readable. Here is an example:
struct 'ModelBoneDef' {
int32 'animid';
int32 'flags';
int16_index 'parent';
int16 'geoid';
int32 'unknown';
AnimationBlock(Vec3D) 'translation';
AnimationBlock(PackedQuaternionAsShorts) 'rotation';
AnimationBlock(Vec3D) 'scaling';
Vec3D 'pivot';
} {
__postload = function(ctype, self, file)
if self.parent==0 then
self.parent = nil
end
return self
end;
};
This syntactic sugar is one of the main strength of Lua as a
domain-specific language platform.