lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

On Friday, July 13, 2007 6:08 AM, Thomas Lauer wrote:

> Stefan Sandberg <> wrote:
>> There's nothing wrong with creating a "product" named Idle,
>> which uses lua and some of it's modules, but I really don't see
>> the purpose of calling the language anything but lua, since it
>> IS lua. Ie, the 'package' that you have created may be called
>> 'Idle', 'Bobs Mix' or 'Bunch'of'stuff', but not the language,
>> because that is still lua. 
> It is. However, a language definition is one thing. A "product"
> (as you 
> wrote) is a different thing. I should and will make that clearer
> in the documentation. 
> The following two-liner is valid Idle but both lines simply
> won't work on standard Lua. 
>> arg:print()
>> return 125
> So let's just agree to disagree.

Someday I may regret this but from all the responses I have seen
from the creator of Idle, my subtext parsing engine is telling me
that 'Idle' wants to be a fork!

And that is Ok by me (not that Idle needs my approval):
- as long as we call a spade a spade
- Idle is compliant with the license of Lua

I understand the pressures of developing a product. Patching Lua and
keeping my main development trunk as a set of patches to be merged
into the official Lua core to 'make' my product doesn't make sense
to me.

I saw this one coming for a long time.

I second it: Let's just agree to disagree.

-- Vijay