On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Dirk Laurie
<dirk.laurie@gmail.com> wrote:
2018年04月29日 20:42 GMT+02:00 Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com>
>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:46 AM, Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 2018年04月29日 6:54 GMT+02:00 Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > the idea of wrapping lua in a batch script makes me sad
>>
>> About emotions there is no disputing ...
>>
>> A swig of bourbon, straight, is said to a wonderful cure for sadness.
>
> I find I am quite allergic to bourbon. I break out in black eyes and
> hand-cuffs. ;)
>>
>>
>> > In the end, modifying Lua itself seems like the best approach?
>>
>> Any question that reaches this answer is one step short. "Or maybe
>> just ditch the notion?"
>
> Quite right. I ended there a few times. I've meditated on conformance and
> expectations of users as well. I'm not considering modifying the way lua
> works other than where the configuration and executables come from. Lua.org
> can't really go there due to the nature of lua (The ethos? ISO C
> conformance...).
>
> I am also fond of chasing my tail if you haven't yet noticed. PIL often
> refers to the fact that the Lua interpreter is really a case study for
> learning the Lua API.
If by "modifying Lua itself" you merely mean "modifiying the Lua
interpreter" I am with you all the way. I do that myself.
Yes, the interpreter only. With the inclusion of NIL_IN_TABLE, I find nothing in the language to complain about, though I've not written large applications in it.
Up the the manual called the interpreter supplied with Lua "a sample
host program".