Changed a bit in the thoughts section in function.lua.

function.lua

@@ -1,31 +1,38 @@
 --[=[  The function formatting module for pretty.
 
 How is one supposed to pretty print functions? Well, there are many different
-formats, and no "best" one, only "best for the purpose". Lets first look at how
+formats, and no "best" one, only "best for the purpose". Lets start at the
-you could display the most raw data about a function.
+simplest, and move towards abstraction.
 
 1.	The default Lua format: "function: 0x41f71c60"
 	This is the default, and by far the easiest. Also, very uninformative. We
 	only get a unique id for the function.
 2.	Include the arguments: "function (t, str) ... end"
 	This is slightly more advanced, as it requires using the debug library to
-	discover the names of the arguments. In addition it adds a pseudo-correct
+	discover the names of the arguments. In addition it comes closer to a Lua
-	formatting for the function. Now we know the arguments, and if they possess
+	parsable formatting. We can know the argument names, and if these are
-	descriptive names, we can learn a lot about the function.
+	descriptive, we can learn some things about the function.
 3.	Include some documentation: "function (x) --[[math.cosh: Returns the hyperbolic cosine of x.]] ... end"
-	We retain the arguments and pseudo-correct formatting from above, and add
+	We retain the arguments and almost parsable formatting from above, and add
-	documentation taken from elsewhere (for example the Lua Reference Manual, or
+	documentation taken from elsewhere - Lua Reference Manual, LuaJIT webpage -
-	LuaJIT webpage), as comments. This is great for explorative programming, as
+	as comments. This is great for explorative programming, as we can read about
-	we can read about the language from within the language.
+	the language by just fiddling around with it.
 4.	Short names: "math.min"
-	Rather than giving an overly descriptive overview of some inbuilt, we assume
+	We can assume that an experienced Lua user might already know how any given
-	that we can find it by its standard name. With this one we gain complete
+	library function works, and would thus prefer a shorthand, rather than the
-	native representation, assuming the standard enviroment, of course. It won't
+	documentation. To that aim, we can use the short name/access path instead.
-	work at all with custom functions.
+	This is also ideal in places where we don't have a lot of space.
+	This representation is completely parsable, but won't necessarily work for
+	custom enviroment and user-defined functions.
 5.	Include source code: "function (a, b) return (a + b)/2 end"
 	Now we find the source code somehow, and use it as the representation. This
-	is powerful because we can directly inspect the code. It won't work with
+	is powerful because we can directly inspect the code. But it makes the
-	builtins, closured functions, or when fucking around with the source files.
+	function representation a lot more bussy. It won't work with builtins,
+	closured functions, or when fucking around with the source files. It also
+	hits limits when functions are nested, as the debug library does not give
+	enough precision.
+	This also works nicely with 3. due to being able to read function
+	documentation from the source file.
 6.	Include closures: "(function () local i = 5; return function () i = i + 1; return i end end)()"
 	In cases where a function has a closure, we can use debug.getinfo to get
 	the names and values of the upvalues. We can then represent the closure, by
@@ -42,6 +49,7 @@ you could display the most raw data about a function.
 	`func_c` should produce the list: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ...
 	To break through this barrier, we need to parse the Lua AST, and that is
 	beyond this project.
+	Closures also create extremely bussy output.
 --]=]
 
 -- Import