Re: Limited dostring()?

["Jay Carlson" <nop@...>]

> As for, should you write your own? If that's the sort of functionality you
need,
> it might be a good idea. Probably you could get away with "require =
dofile" in
> a pinch,and remove that when you upgrade.

In 4.0 I've been writing:

local require = require or dofile

but I guess that isn't future-proof....

Jay