[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua sources (was Re: Anyone have a 5.2 .... )
- From: Xavier Wang <weasley.wx@...>
- Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:02:22 +0800
But you know Lua is also a embedding language, so maybe someone (but
not me) only use lua in their projects but not public? In this way
they have right to change the code to fit their needs.
2012/2/18 Gavin Wraith <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> In message
> you wrote:
>> > So eventually I used only the minimal version of the patch. It looks like
>> > I may have avoided some problems in keeping the patch uptodate by doing
>> > that.
>> I was very happy to find your version of the patch :)
> Everybody rightly praises the clarity and style of the Lua source code.
> I hope that I do not sound ungrateful when I say that there will
> always be muddle-heads like myself for whom no source code can ever be
> clear enough, modular enough or documented enough. It is stressed
> that the VM presented by the Lua distribution is simply an implementation,
> and separate from the language itself. However, it is quite hard to
> disentangle the VM from the language in the sources. If somebody were
> to ask a keen graduate student to fashion a different implementation
> of the language, let us say by directly executing a parse tree, the way
> gawk does (as opposed to mawk which takes the VM strategy) which source
> files can our student safely leave alone and which should she be seeking
> to replace? I find the LuaJIT sources even harder to understand. But I
> realize that these remarks are more a lament for my declining powers of
> concentration than useful criticism.
> Gavin Wraith (email@example.com)
> Home page: http://www.wra1th.plus.com/