[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Modify Lua Executable for a -51 option
- From: Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@...>
- Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 20:54:28 +0200
2018-04-29 20:42 GMT+02:00 Russell Haley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 1:46 AM, Dirk Laurie <email@example.com> wrote:
>> 2018-04-29 6:54 GMT+02:00 Russell Haley <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> > the idea of wrapping lua in a batch script makes me sad
>> About emotions there is no disputing ...
>> A swig of bourbon, straight, is said to a wonderful cure for sadness.
> I find I am quite allergic to bourbon. I break out in black eyes and
> hand-cuffs. ;)
>> > In the end, modifying Lua itself seems like the best approach?
>> Any question that reaches this answer is one step short. "Or maybe
>> just ditch the notion?"
> Quite right. I ended there a few times. I've meditated on conformance and
> expectations of users as well. I'm not considering modifying the way lua
> works other than where the configuration and executables come from. Lua.org
> can't really go there due to the nature of lua (The ethos? ISO C
> I am also fond of chasing my tail if you haven't yet noticed. PIL often
> refers to the fact that the Lua interpreter is really a case study for
> learning the Lua API.
If by "modifying Lua itself" you merely mean "modifiying the Lua
interpreter" I am with you all the way. I do that myself.
Up the the manual called the interpreter supplied with Lua "a sample