Re: 5.2-beta changes as an annotated reference manual

[Peter Cawley <lua@...>]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Patrick Rapin <toupie300@gmail.com> wrote:
> But why do you call "PUC-Rio 5.1" what seems to be Lua 5.1 ?
> A recent thread talked about the retronym "PUC Lua" [1]
> The conclusion is that the implementation is simply "Lua".
> I would understand that you use that proposed name.
> "PUC-Rio 5.1", however, would be a upgraded name for the Pontifical
> University of Rio itself...

I still feel happier using the term "Lua 5.1" for the language, and
"PUC[-Rio] [Lua] 5.1" for the implementation. Perhaps at some point
I'll come round to using "Lua 5.1" for both the language and the
implementation.