Re: 64 bit integer support as a native lua type.

[William Ahern <william@...>]

On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 03:44:29PM +0100, Rob Kendrick wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 10:25:28AM -0400, Rena wrote:
> > > (It's sad that Lua's written in C89.  But this isn't a comment on the
> > > authors, but the state of the world's compilers.  There are features in
> > > C11 I'd love to use, but basically only people using clang could ever
> > > build it.)
> > >
> > > B.
> > >
> > >
> > But why is it that when a compiler lacks support for a feature that's been
> > standard for years/decades, we just accept it and avoid using that feature,
> > instead of considering it a buggy compiler and bugging the maintainers?
> 
> I look forward to the results of you bugging Microsoft on this subject :)
> 
> There are also issues outside compiler maintainership.  A foolish
> company, some years ago, decided to base their system calls and API on
> C++.  This has the hilarious* consequence that they're still stuck on
> GCC 2.95.
> 
> B.

Don't leave us hanging! Which one?