Re: [ANN] Penlight 1.3 Request for Comment

[Jon Akhtar <akhtar@...>]

Steve,

One of these days my editor will be able to completely process Penlight's source. I thought I was close to that day, now I will need  to run some tests for - hopefully this weekend. I'd love it if at some point you checked out how much of Penlight was supported  for (completions, documentation, and of course semantic highlighting including inspections, intentions, and refactoring of not only the code but the Doc Comments)

I am still trying to come up with the best way to migrate to LDoc - maybe some tips from the guru would help. I'd like to keep on top of common Lua idioms, and if this represents one. 5.2 is only sort-of supported by me, and I'd love to learn about the issues you ran into migrating to supporting 5.2 (without 5.1 compatibility) that I may not yet know about.. Don't want to hijack your thread here. Drop me a note if you are interested in giving it a go. I have a funeral in an hour to go to, but I'd like to take a better look this evening.

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 10:41 AM, steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@gmail.com> wrote:
> mere boolean. Would it spoil some vast eternal plan if in the
> case of a successful import, `pl` would be a table containing
> `compat`, `import_into` and `utils`? Which also tests `true`?

No plan would be upset. The original idea was that require 'pl' was
the lazy way to write scripts;  all the modules are available, but
only _loaded_ when used.  It is perfectly possible for the return to
be that table of contents, and lazy loading could happen less
automagically thereafter.

As for local utils = require 'pl.utils', I've been doing that since
the days of the original 'module considered harmful' discussions and
anyone writing _modules_ using PL should prefer that style, since no
magic is used.