Hi Soni,
On 07/07/2017 09:23 PM, Soni L. wrote:
On 2017年07月08日 12:45 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
I am happy to announce release 1.1 of typecheck.
Typecheck's home page is at http://gvvaughan.github.io/typecheck
[[snip]]
Why not pow decorators?
x + argscheck "my_function (int, int) => int" .. f --> runtime error
x + argscheck '...' ^ f --> ok
In any case, both operators are right-associative, which gives proper
decorator semantics.
(Also please tell me you felt inspired by my own libs? ^-^ [1][2])
I did see the announcements, but the decorator syntax was a contributed
patch. Until that point I was using decorator functions:
x + argscheck('my_function (int, int) => int', f)
However, even now I'm not convinced of the utility of inline argscheck
calls. Adding the decorators to a module export table seems much more
manageable to me:
return {
fname = argscheck 'fname (int, int) => int' .. fname,
}