implementation of lua 5.3 features

[zaxebo1]

http://www.moonsharp.org/about.html mentions that moonsharp implements 99% of "lua 5.2"

Is there any timeline to implement lua 5.3 features ( see http://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/readme.html ) in moonsharp, esp. see the "main changes" , "language" and "library" section mentioned there in the lua 5.3 readme.

[xanathar]

The plan is to get to a very stable implementation with the current feature set and mark it 1.0 before thinking of supporting any more of the 5.3.

Anyway, as I'm going to keep this thread open for the future:

Main changes

• integers (64-bit by default) : interesting feature but with a very high cost at the moment. Might get in, however.
• official support for 32-bit numbers : TBA
• bitwise operators : doesn't make sense until integers are implemented. Also, not extremely useful given bit32 lib.
• basic utf-8 support : parts of it already supported. Other parts will not, as MoonSharp is UTF-16 internally (strings are a major difference between the twos).
• functions for packing and unpacking values : TBA

Language

• userdata can have any Lua value as uservalue : not sure, but it might already be supported
• integer division : TBA
• more flexible rules for some metamethods : TBA

Libraries

• ipairs and the table library respect metamethods : nice in theory.. in practice Lua 5.1 metamethods rules are much more efficient. 5.2 strikes in the middle. TBA
• strip option in string.dump : TBA. string.dump in MoonSharp is compliant with Lua 5.2 documentation, not with 5.2 implementation which is correctly documented in 5.3 (ouch)
• new function table.move : TBA. Interesting function, likely to be implemented soon.
• new function string.pack : TBA
• new function string.unpack : TBA
• new function string.packsize : TBA

[zaxebo1]

(also add this from the same url)

Lua standalone interpreter

• can be used as calculator; no need to prefix with '='
• arg table available to all code

[kernighan]

This has been open for over 4 years, and Lua 5.4 is just around the corner. Should it just be assumed that Moonsharp has no intention of staying current?

[LimpingNinja]

@kernighan We've moved Moonsharp into a Github org and have two new maintainers added; we are working through bugs first while working on ideas for the next release. Whether any or all of the above is included will be one of those decisions. We are happily accepting PR's through Github so if you have any of the above implemented, feel free to share.