Re: suggestion for reference manual update/clarification

[Martin <wtxnh-lua@...>]

On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:59:21PM +0800, KHMan wrote:
> Looking back from the beginning of the thread, yes, the reference
> manual is terse and fat-free. I think it's intentional; I guess to
> some extent, the intended reader, i.e. a developer, is expected to
> know C and stuff like that, and be able drop down to look at the
> sources, especially for examples of API usage.

I hope you are not right that reference manual authors
has intentionally omitted description of API functions.
On the other hand I can understand that there can be desire
to keep reference concise. I just pointed out some findings of
mine that I think should be in reference. But I may be wrong.

> In an earlier post, you mentioned setting utf-8 on your computer,
> but then you say, and I quote: "I do not know how they work under
> Windows Unicode charset." Windows use UTF-16LE; I don't believe
> you can set UTF-8 except in specific applications. You also use
> the word "strange". You're sure you intend to use UTF-8 and not
> UTF-16LE?

My mistake! I failed to say that my computer is running Linux.
The sentence you quoted is purely speculative and I would
probably do better not use it at first place since I do not
use Windows.

Martin