[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- From: "V S P" <toreason@...>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:48:55 -0400
I would recommend to consider metalua
and do the source level translation rather than bytecode translation
mainly because I think doing byte code translation would lead to need to
emulate garbage collection
idioms that are specific to lua (or so I think)
plus, of course, for users of your final tool would probably like to
'limit' the types of APIs
that get translated.
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:14 -0500, "Phil Deets" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > The main use case would simply be to provide an alternative language for
> > the web. You would just have to run the translator before you use the
> > script.
> > This would be different than the lua2js which already exists on LuaForge
> > since I would want to make it work in all cases with the only
> > restrictions
> > being on what modules can be used. I think lua2js only does a superficial
> > translation. For example, I don't think it handles using functions as an
> > index into a table.
author of C++ ORM http://github.com/vladp/CppOrm/tree/master
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.