[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: PUC Lua
- From: Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <lhf@...>
- Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 08:56:45 -0300
> 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?
Probably not, but we're not in the business of language standardisation (yet?).
There are no "authorized" or "deauthorized" versions of Lua.