Comment # 37
on bug 10881
from João Valverde
(In reply to Balint Reczey from comment #36)
> (In reply to João Valverde from comment #35)
> > (In reply to Balint Reczey from comment #34)
> > > Reading through all the reviews and email discussions on -dev I think adding
> > > Lua 5.3 support would be beneficial, for the reasons Peter explained:
> > > https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201608/msg00147.html
> >
> > Peter made some very good points.
> >
> > I look forward to reviewing your code implementing wslua compatibility with
> > 5.1/5.2/5.3 and Lua BitOp with 64 bit support.
>
> To clarify my point I don't think we should ensure bitop backwards
> compatibility.
> We can break the Lua API in every few major releases, it is still way more
> pleasant than the C API.
>
> I don't think sticking to obsoleted custom solutions is worth the pain while
> Lua as a language evolves.
> 5.4 will probably be a bit different again and we may end up supporting only
> 5.4
> skipping 5.3 in Wireshark 2.4.
Agreed.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.