Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <lhf@tecgraf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
Well, that's one of the areas where it gets murky. My understanding (and
firm expectation) is that something that ends with .lua MUST run with a
standard lua interpreter/compiler.
I don't quite feel as strongly about this but by all means call your
scripts .idle.
You know your way around, know how to deal with a .lua script that seems
to have a bug but is in fact correct Idle. So for you, this small
difference is not a big deal.
Many other people I have worked with over the years need hand-holding on
a scale that is difficult to comprehend for Real Programmers [tm].
My point is why duplicate the reference manual, changing
all references to Lua into Idle? Just write a much smaller reference
manual that lists and discussed the differences and extensions.
In an ideal world, I'd do just that. But Idle is for real people who
want something simple but powerful. Given that most real people have a
strained relationship with user manuals and documentation I just think
that this approach won't work well in the long run. A user who's faced
with a completely new language probably doesn't want to search bits and
pieces of the manuals from here and there.
It's not that I do not see your point. But for me the (prospective)
users are the Absolute Kings and Queens (this includes people who are
not programmers in any sense of the word). My take is that I have to
make all this as simple and smooth as possible.
