[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: PUC Lua
- From: Benoit Germain <bnt.germain@...>
- Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 09:50:08 +0200
2011/5/27 Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <email@example.com>:
>> For example on the versions page (www.lua.org/versions.html) there is no
>> hint to the release number (maybe what you just said could be inserted
>> in a note in that page under a "version numbering scheme" section).
> Done. See http://www.lua.org/versions.html#numbering
> Thanks for the nudge.
This "In particular, different releases for the same version have the
same reference manual" detail rings a bell.
Does this mean that, for all VMs reporting a given _VERSION string I
can query in a script, I should expect them to behave the same (but
for the bugfixes)?
In particular, should I be able require the same "native" modules and
expect them to work (as long as they dynamically link against the VM
implementation of course)?
Can an implementation that conforms to the language syntax, but
doesn't implement the full Lua C API still be considered as
reference-manual-compliant? Is it "authorized" to report the same
_VERSION as the PUC implementation?