Re: [glob2-devel] Language demands

[Martin Voelkle]

> >It's a bad idea to use the call stack for TEA functions, since you won't be 
> >able to save/restore it. SGSL doesn't have that problem, because it doesn't 
> >have stacks. The only thing that must be saved are the instruction pointer 
> >and a few global variables.
> >  
> >
> Yes, SGSL have no control statements and internal script functions, and 
> that make a big difference. I have been thinking about the "call stack" 
> problem in TEA, and I guess I could make it use another method there too 
> (I maintain the call stack), and yes this makes persisting the script 
> state more easy to do.

Since you maintain the call stack, you just need to push the address of
the instruction after the call (don't use a pointer if you want to be
able to save/restore it), jump to the address of the call and do the
reverse on method return.

> The only problem that remain (for both TEA and SGSL) is when the script 
> calls some external functions, as we have no control over these as for 
> dead loop and other faults !

Treat these external functions as atomic instructions and make sure they
don't call script functions. Since they are part of glob2, we can trust
them as for bugs (hopefully).

> >There is no "language comment" in the LUA license. It speaks about the 
> >source 
> >code of the implementation that can't be modified without modifying the name 
> >of the program. LUA abandoned that license for this reason and switched to 
> >the MIT license.
> >  
> >
> ... they just defines what may be viewed as an extension to LUA and what 
> is a change in the language semantic, and I like that separation.

I'm sorry, I don't see that kind of wording in the license:
http://www.lua.org/license.html

> >I had misunderstood what you wanted to keep free. I thought you wanted the 
> >specification of the language to be fixed and your implementation to be 
> >free. 
> >  
> >
> If someone thinks they can improve TEA by changing the language, they 
> are welcome to use my code as base, as long as it has another name and 
> remain LGPL. But I prefere to see the changes go into TEA to make it an 
> even better language.
> 
> >But it seems like you want to let people modify the language as well.
> >  
> >
> Yes, but I like to stay in control of this instance :-)
> 
> Is this a bad idea ?

No, you can always keep control of what you release. That's the whole
point of maintainership.

Martin