[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Inline Functions
- From: Björn De Meyer <bjorn.demeyer@...>
- Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 22:43:30 +0100
Peter Hill wrote:
> I'm writing a Lua parser in Visual Basic so I'll try tinkering with the
> syntax in that first, and report back any suggestions / problems.
Please, reconsider. Visual basic is the exact opposite of what Lua
is supposed to be: portable, small, and open software. If you rewrite
the parser in VB, then that parser, plus your modifications to it will
be unacessible to those of us who don't use windows, or wo refuse to
use proprietary programming languages. Not to mention the bloat,
slowdown and "reinventing the weel" that will happen.
It would be best if you tried to incorporate the changes you proposed
into the C version of Lua 5.0 beta. Some of the changes you proposed
are relartively for a C programmer to do.
You do know how to program in C, yes? Then please, implement
your changes in C, so I can give your ideas a chance.
If you really need a Lua parser in VB, then it will be a lot faster to
simply compile liblua and liblaux into dlls that export their
functionality, and then import that functionality into VB.
I even think this may already have been done some time ago...
> Some syntax possibilities (generally of a homogenising nature) that I intend
> to try are:
/Some/ of these change, together with /some/ of the dozens
of other changes you proposed are interesting, whilst I think
other changes are not that wise. Lua 4 had "Sol", an "unofficial"
modified version of Lua 4. Maybe you can also make your own project
that is a modified version of Lua 5, under a different name?
However, it's neither us, nor you who determines what goes into
"official" Lua though. That remains the prerogative of the creators
"No one knows true heroes, for they speak not of their greatness." --
Björn De Meyer