LÖVE

kikito wrote:

OmarShehata wrote:I was considering attempting to make my own version of Lua with brackets for everything, that would first compile to Lua, removing the brackets and placing indents where appropriate then compiling that Lua file. How hard/practical would that be? Perhaps someone could make a stricter version of Lua.

That sounds a lot like moonscript (it uses spacing instead of brackets, like Python).

Robin wrote:var is not a keyword in Lua. It's local.

local myXVariable = 2

--Then later

if myXvariable <= 10 --won't work. Won't throw an error.

var myXVariable = 2

if myXvariable <= 10 --Should throw an error because it wasn't declared

Santos wrote:Killa may be of interest.

OmarShehata wrote:

kikito wrote:

OmarShehata wrote:I was considering attempting to make my own version of Lua with brackets for everything, that would first compile to Lua, removing the brackets and placing indents where appropriate then compiling that Lua file. How hard/practical would that be? Perhaps someone could make a stricter version of Lua.

That sounds a lot like moonscript (it uses spacing instead of brackets, like Python).

The thing that really peeved me with Python is how annoying the spacings were, so I wouldn't be looking forward to using that. MoonScript does look pretty interesting though.

I didn't want to make a new thread for this so I thought I'd just say it here, but is it just me or is the fact that declaring a variable and assigning a value to a variable are indistinguishable a glaring design flaw?

While I found this: http://lua-users.org/wiki/DetectingUndefinedVariables It just seems to me like a convoluted way to solve a problem when all it would take is making it so that you need to type "var Varname = value" when declaring a value. So if you try doing:

myX = 2;

And myX was never declared before, it would give you an error. It's simple, and it would prevent a *lot* of headaches.

Now I'm not that experienced in programming to go around pointing design flaws in languages, but would there be *any* disadvantages whatsoever to enforcing proper declaration?

kikito wrote:I sympathise with OmarShehata on the "global by default" business. After years using Lua, it still nags me. I'm firmly on the "nothing by default - neither local or global" camp.

It is possible to prevent a lot of the harm of "global by default" using XGoff's 3 lines of code. But this solution will work only in your code. If you try to use it with other libraries, it will fail if the other's try to declare a global variable "the standard way". That's why I think it should be done by default, with a specific syntax.

I've read that Lua 4.0 used some kind of notation to differentiate globals from locals - the % sign was involved. It was deemed (correctly) too cumbersome and dropped in 5.0, and that's where we are now. I hope they change it to something saner in Lua 6.x.

paulclinger wrote:@OmarShehata: you can get this type of analysis (to detect typos) using lua-inspect. I've integrated it into ZeroBrane Studio IDE and it produces this type of report: static analyzer screenshot.

You can also get auto-complete, although it cheats a bit and simply does syntax analysis for those classes it knows about; for example, if it know about class Foo:bar and Foo:baz and you do "f = Foo.new()" and then start typing "f:" it will offer you "bar" and "baz" as two options. It wouldn't work in its current form for function parameters and custom classes.

...\love\tutorials\intro\main.lua|1 col 10| unknown global love
...\love\tutorials\intro\main.lua|1 col 15| unknown field load