Re: Small setback in porting Lua to Windows CE

["Michael T. Richter" <mtr@...>]

> Please don't get me wrong. Even if I tried, my English is not good
> enough for me to be "calmly dismissive" in a written message. I was not
> saying we don't care; quite the opposite. It is because we do care that
> we are changing error messages to make it easier to use Lua in
> Windows-related platforms (and other "non conforming" platforms). The
> point I was trying to make (not even in the message, that was only a PS!)
> was: it is impossible to make a software to run just "everywhere". So we
> use "conforming hosted implementations" as our portability base. If we
> can make it more portable than that, very good. But we cannot assume we
> will try to solve all portability problems that may appear when porting
> Lua to "non conforming hosted implementations" (for instance, we do not
> intend [at least for now] to get rid of the string library). 

Sorry.  I got snippy for no reason.  I have a lot of UNIX-infested 
colleagues who will go out of their way to make life difficult for Windows 
developers and your message coincided with another bout of "let's make life 
hell on Windows developers" in the company.

I appreciate your help and the effort you've put in so far.  (And would you 
be interested in the source changes I've made so far which allow Lua to be 
done as a dynamic link library under Win32?)

-- 
Michael T. Richter    <mtr@ottawa.com>    http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
          PGP Key: http://www.igs.net/~mtr/pgp-key.html
PGP Fingerprint: 40D1 33E0 F70B 6BB5 8353 4669 B4CC DD09 04ED 4FE8