Unless I'm missing something, this wouldn't result in any ambiguous
syntax. An identifier, followed by a . or :, followed by a keyword, is
never valid syntax under current rules, so treating the keyword in
that sequence of tokens as an identifier shouldn't cause problems.
So I'm +1 on this. It would be nice to have the ability to do things
like _G.end (or _ENV.end). Again, unless I'm missing something (which
I very well might be given that I'm currently recovering from a cold
that's screwing with my thinking a bit).
If not causing ambiguity is a good enough reason, why stop at reserved
words? We could as well add all the other tokens, too. None of them
cause ambiguities:
_G.* _G.% _G.>= _G.< _G.== _G.( _G.] _G:)
And it would be even easier to implement...
(For '.', '..', '...', and numbers, we would need to add a space,
like here: '_G. .' _'G. ..' '_G. ...' '_G. 34')
-- Roberto