Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Lua 5.3 changes #1516

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from
Closed

Lua 5.3 changes #1516

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

mathstuf
Copy link
Contributor


It at least doesn't disappear with light usage now. Probably more lurking, but this should be enough to at least play around with 5.3 (5.2 is untested since I don't have it right now).

Since Lua now has integers and is fairly strict about it, handle inf,
nan, etc. by using default values if these pop up. This is observed when
the OSC is initialized and the video size parameters are all 0 which
turn into divide-by-zero (inf in Lua) which flows through and eventually
are expected to be integers.
The string format is rejecting values like '400.9' because they can't be
(losslessly) converted to integers. See:

    http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.lua.general/113743
@mathstuf
Copy link
Contributor Author

@wm4 Is Lua 5.3 something you're still interested in seeing? Or is it still too hard to support in parallel to the currently supported Lua versions? FWIW, Fedora no longer ships Lua modules for 5.1 which some scripts use (posix, socket-http for notify.lua) which makes them harder to use.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 1, 2016

Supporting 5.3 would be ok, but I still think it'd be chaos to support both 5.3 and 5.2 at once.

Does luajit support 5.3 yet?

@mathstuf
Copy link
Contributor Author

mathstuf commented Apr 1, 2016

The luajit developer(s?) seem to not like 5.3, so "unlikely". This Reddit thread has some discussion. Apparently even 5.2 isn't fully supported either (_ENV and yielding).

@jdek
Copy link
Contributor

jdek commented Jan 29, 2017

This can be closed for the same reason as #1914.

@Akemi Akemi closed this Jan 29, 2017
@ghost ghost mentioned this pull request Dec 9, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants