Re: lua branch

[Ian Price]

Nala Ginrut <address@hidden> 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 '...' in a function that accepts variable
> arguments
> +  (define *vararg-gensym* #f)
> +
>
> I know it's consistent with the old code, but maybe parameterize is
> suggested? 

Yeah, fluid-let or parameterize is a lot better to my mind, but this way
was less invasive.

> Besides, as we talked in IRC, LALR/PEG is better than this manual
> parser. But I think this lua implementation could work after some
> patches, so I'm not sure if it's necessary to rewrite it with LALR/PEG.
> What do you think? 

It's not necessary, and I don't have any intention of ripping out the
parser and writing a new one.  If someone else wrote one though, I think
we should consider it.

-- 
Ian Price -- shift-reset.com

"Programming is like pinball. The reward for doing it well is
the opportunity to do it again" - from "The Wizardy Compiled"