E2 doesn't allow method-style functions on numbers

[airidas338]

Example: function void number:testFunction() { }

Enable numbers as function object types, so we could create functions similar to these n:teamDeaths(), teamName() which is implemented in E2. (No, i don't want to add number as parameter, this way it looks better, nearly can simulate object based scripting)

[Divran]

hm, try normal:test() ?

[bigdogmat]

Returns the same error

[TomyLobo]

It's pretty simple actually:

1. What's the error?
2. Are we throwing it?
3. Is Garry throwing it?
4. Is Lua throwing it?
5. If 2., was there a reason for introducing that error?
6. Is that a good reason?
7. Does that reason still apply?

[TomyLobo]

Maybe E2 needs user-defined types, so he can have a Team type :)

[Divran]

Currently the easiest way to fake objects is to use tables and then create functions on the table type.

[oldmud0]

Agreed, we should get some user-defined types.

But Divran is already directing people to things that are "better" than E2 so why bother.

[Divran]

@oldmud0 development for E2 has been pretty stale for years

EDIT: doesn't mean we don't randomly get the urge to do small stuff, or accept pull requests

[bigdogmat]

Any update on this issue?

EDIT: We're doing a check here https://github.com/wiremod/wire/blob/master/lua/entities/gmod_wire_expression2/base/parser.lua#L601-L622 to see if the type is normal and if so error out, I removed the line and the number as function object worked fine.

Is their any reason to have that check?

[Divran]

That's weird. I don't see any reason to have that.

[bigdogmat]

Neither did I, maybe caused an old bug? If it did I'd think it's been fixed by now as I wasn't able to produce any errors using numbers as objects.

[TomyLobo]

In this case, I'd say remove it and see if people complain :) You can try doing shenanigans with all the different kinds of number literals to see if they cause problems.

[Divran]

Apparently Syranide did this, just saying

[bigdogmat]

So should we just comment out the line just incase something happens? I mean unless someone can contact Syranide and ask why it was added( doubt he remembers ), we don't have much to go off of. And should I create a pull request for this or would it be easier for someone to commit it directly in?

[syranide]

The only thing that makes sense to me is that it was added to give a useful error message. My thinking probably being that it doesn't really make sense to have methods on numbers, they're "too primitive" in a sense and the only operations that really makes sense are already operators. Anything that operates on numbers are better provided as functions across the board (from a CS perspective).

Anyway, do as you please :) because I can't imagine it being there for any other reason, and it should be immediately obvious if it has to be there (like not parsing).

[Divran]

My thinking probably being that it doesn't really make sense to have methods on numbers, they're "too primitive" in a sense and the only operations that really makes sense are already operators

This is E2, we don't give a fuck

EDIT: as long as it's better than PHP, but we couldn't make E2 worse than PHP even if we tried.

[TomyLobo]

PHP has classes with polymorphism... let's at least add user-defined types. together with method-style they feel like non-polymorphic classes Shorthand would be automatically assigned from a pool of x00..x99, so we have 100 user-defined classes :)