Re: Lua hacking

[Ketmar Dark <ketmar@...>]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 22:22:45 +0200
"Mauro Iazzi" <mauro.iazzi@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the suggestions. Metalua was actually one of the ideas I
> had. I think my solution is simpler anyway, and has no big downside.
the biggest downside (imho) is a modified Lua sources. it is good as
long as the author provides patches for every new Lua version released
(and -- ideally -- provides pre-built binaries). not every Lua user can
patch/build the interpreter. modified code base is an extremly good
solution for personal use, but when it goes to public... just take a
look at LuaPowerPatches -- there are lot of good things that wasn't
updated to an actual Lua version. %-(

I don't want to say that you did everything wrong, but modified code
base needs constant support. and if one will write everything in Lua
itself, rewriting to new versions will be almost trivial.

please don't take it too personal, it's just a my five useless cents.
%-)

> So whether It is done in C or in Metalua, the interpreter will
> look the same to the user, because it will forbid some (not so common
> I hope) Lua syntax to better distinguish the two.
this can lead to subtle script errors that are hard to find, I think.
it's better to give a choice, so one can bypass non-standard parser.
Lua is a flexible launguage, so one can write a custom parser
completely in Lua. the only concern, I think, is a parsing speed.

maybe someone will rewrite your code in pure Lua. it's better to have
an alternative. the one who wants speed will use C patches, the one who
wants to use vanilla Lua interpreter will use Lua port. %-)