[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Description of Stdlib 34.1
- From: "Gary V. Vaughan" <gary@...>
- Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 17:45:04 +0700
On 2 Apr 2013, at 17:19, steve donovan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Gary V. Vaughan <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Anyone can do anything with it. I believe that's called the WTFYL license.
> Among other problems, Luadoc relies (indirectly) on luasocket which is not
> yet Lua 5.2 compatible.
> Actually, bleeding-edge version works with 5.2
> I point this out because it's a common misconception - there are versions of LuaSocket that work fine with 5.2 (I did my own port for the LuaBuild project). But we're all waiting for a proper 2.1 release...
That's good to know... but still small consolation when someone is building
a Lua 5.2 stack, and wants to send us a stdlib pull request including doc
updates, and realises they have to jump through extra hoops to get LuaDoc
working, and first either build a separate 5.1 stack just for LuaDoc, or
else hand build and install bleeding edge dependencies. Ick! }:->
Some of the "others" I was alluding to with my "among" comment in the
earlier post are that my impression is that LuaDoc is stagnating while LDoc
is gaining wider adoption. Plus I don't actually have any experience with
either of them, so if I'm going to overhaul the stdlib doc-comments, I only
want to learn one. And being a markdown user, and hand-written HTML hater,
LDoc seems like the better choice -- with the bonus of removing some hurdles
to sending pull-requests for future contributors :)
Gary V. Vaughan (gary AT vaughan DOT pe)