Re: [ANN] An extended Lua FAQ

[steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>]

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Javier Guerra<javier@guerrag.com> wrote:
> i think this is a good thing to do, and might be a good starting seed;
> but just glancing over it, found too many assertions that might be
> correct in practice, but wrong in theory

I think this is the best sentence I have read all day, thanks Javier

>, or at least doesn't define
> the concepts before using them.

Yes, if it's trying to be a tutorial, then that has to be carefully
done. I worry about the unevenness of tone, mixing stuff of different
levels.

> maybe i wouldn't change much about it, just add a big fat warning
> about not being an authoritative reference in any sense, and adding a
> lot of links back to the relevant official definitions in the
> reference.

Yes, that's a good idea - This is Not a Reference (TINAR)  I realized
too late that people might be confused by the existing Lua FAQ, which
has a different scope and purpose.

> personally, i do like the terse, precise and succinct language used in
> the reference.  but that makes it not the easiest tutorial, so a FAQ
> that explains the practical issues, and then refers to the reference
> would be best.

I've come to appreciate the well-written precision of the manual
myself. And of course anybody who is half-serious should read PiL.

steve d.