Congrats! You survived from that manual parser! :-)
But I'm concern the parser is hard to extend if we need mordern Lua grammar.
2013-9-10 AM4:20，"Ian Price" ：
>
>
> So, it's been 5 months since I originally posted those patches about
> Guile Lua. How time flies when you are steadfastly not wantin
So, it's been 5 months since I originally posted those patches about
Guile Lua. How time flies when you are steadfastly not wanting to touch
a parser :)
Anyway, I have pushed those patches, and rebased lua on the current
master. This means all the test cases for lua (such as they are)
actually pa
ittle discouraged while implementing Lua's multiple
> values everywhere, to be honest.
>
> By all means, feel free to take over the lua branch. As long as it's
> okay with Ludo, Andy, whoever is in charge these days, I think you
> should push to it with reckless abandon instead
Hey guys,
I was just thinking about Guile Lua (and feeling guilty that I never
did finish it). Anyway, I never did make any progress after my 2012
posts. I got a little discouraged while implementing Lua's multiple
values everywhere, to be honest.
By all means, feel free to take over th
Ian Price writes:
> The current issues with lua vs master are as follows
> 1) has been renamed to on master
> 2) has been replaced with which is not quite a drop-in
> 3) while was being compiled into something with improper scoping.
>
> I have fixes for these locally. There is just the questi
Ian Price writes:
> I don't know much about Lua, but I think I could do the following.
> 1. Fix the lua-lexer failure.
> 2. Disable or fix[1] the variable-arguments functionality.
> 3. Rebase or merge with modern stable or master
> 4. Fix the errors that arise as a result of 3.
The current issues
Ian Price skribis:
> Ian Price writes:
>
>> I don't know much about Lua, but I think I could do the following.
>> 1. Fix the lua-lexer failure.
>> 2. Disable or fix[1] the variable-arguments functionality.
>> 3. Rebase or merge with modern stable or master
>> 4. Fix the errors that arise as a re
Nala Ginrut writes:
> + (let* ((old-vararg-function *vararg-function*)
> + (old-vararg-gensym *vararg-gensym*))
>
> Is 'let' better here?
Actually, I didn't notice that it was a let*. It's arguably a little
more confusing, but not really harmful.
> + ;; refers to the gensym for
hi ijp!
Here're some rough thoughts about the patch:
On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 05:50 +, Ian Price wrote:
> Ian Price writes:
>
> > I don't know much about Lua, but I think I could do the following.
> > 1. Fix the lua-lexer failure.
> > 2. Disable or fix[1] the variable-arguments functionality.
>
Ian Price writes:
> I don't know much about Lua, but I think I could do the following.
> 1. Fix the lua-lexer failure.
> 2. Disable or fix[1] the variable-arguments functionality.
> 3. Rebase or merge with modern stable or master
> 4. Fix the errors that arise as a result of 3.
I have patches fo
Prompted by the recent discussion of lua/zile on guile-user, I decided
to checkout what the actual state of the Lua branch is.
First off, not all of the tests pass.
- lua-standard-library and lua-eval pass with no problems.
- lua-lexer has 1 failure, which is easy fixed (change #:vararg
to
11 matches
Mail list logo
