Re: lua branch

[Nala Ginrut]

hi ijp!
Here're some rough thoughts about the patch:

On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 05:50 +0000, Ian Price wrote:
> Ian Price <address@hidden> 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 for 1 & 2.
> 


+      (let* ((old-vararg-function *vararg-function*)
+             (old-vararg-gensym *vararg-gensym*))

Is 'let' better here?

------------------------

+  ;; 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? 

------------------------


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?