[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Are parenthesis-free calls a Good?
- From: "Mark Edgar" <medgar123+lua-l@...>
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 00:39:33 -0700
On Jan 31, 2008 8:36 PM, Brandon Van Every <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2008 10:21 PM, Miles Bader <email@example.com> wrote:
> > "Brandon Van Every" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Because if CMake adopts Lua as the build language, then the CMake
> developers have to support all permutations of Lua that 3rd parties
> are going to write. I hanker to write metaprogramming tools for
> CMake, to make translations from legacy build systems easier. If my
> target language has lots more ways of doing things, that increases my
> metaprogramming burdens.
If CMake were to use Lua as its extension language, I would recommend
that it use the standard Lua language (5.1) and use the standard 5.1.3
Lua distribution with no additional patches. It is simply not
possible that any other permutations of the Lua language can be used
with CMake. This is how Lua is typically used -- the embedding
project (in this case CMake) embeds the Lua interpreter and therefore
it gets to say which "flavor" of Lua it uses.
If you find, however, that some or another patch would be useful for
CMake to incorporate, say LuaJIT or any of the patches listed on the
wiki at http://lua-users.org/wiki/LuaPowerPatches then again, CMake is
in always control of which permutation of Lua can be used with it.