Re: Lua hacking

["Mauro Iazzi" <mauro.iazzi@...>]

On 22/05/07, Ketmar Dark <ketmar@online.ua> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 22:22:45 +0200
> "Mauro Iazzi" <mauro.iazzi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 see. It is a problem indeed. The size of the patch is quite small,
on the other hand, and Lua is quite stable between major changes, it
seems. I find no hint on how much the patch will resist without being
changed...

> 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.

The first time I tried, I wanted to trap exceptions in the
lua-provided interpreter. It worked for simple commands. For complex
ones I could not even understand where the syntax error was. A more
descriptive kind of exceptions would have helped a lot.

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

I shouldn't have posted if I didn't like opinions... ;-)

> 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.

this is up to the user to say if it is confusing. I am wondering about
the possibility of dynamically choosing to parse Lua or Lsh. This
seems viable and would provide a way to use pure Lua in scripts. (I
still think that for interactive use the modified syntax is ok. who
would like to call something like ls() everytime?) The cost is
probably to patch many more files...

> 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. %-)

I hope it happens. I'm currently packing lsh the best I can. I hope
you will give it a try...