FW: Loadlib's callfromlib() - anybody using it?!?

[Asko Kauppi <Asko.Kauppi@...>]

Using the linker still requires you to recompile the interpreter (adding the
"mylibopen()" or something into initialising libraries). This is _not_ what
I and some others like to do. We like to be able to use a "off-the-shelf"
interpreter and extend that with modules just by giving command line
parameters or placing certain files in certain folders.

This is mainly a maintenance issue, not so much technical. In fact, I'll be
doing the stuff statically now but - hopefully - returning to the subject
later. It's a matter of different "usage models" for the language, I guess.

- Asko

--
Asko Kauppi
Flextronics Design Finland
Box 23, 39201 Kyröskoski, Finland
www.flextronics.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo [SMTP:lhf@tecgraf.puc-rio.br]
> Sent:	Monday, June 10, 2002 2:42 PM
> To:	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject:	Re: Loadlib's callfromlib() - anybody using it?!?
> 
> >I'm (still) a bit confused about 'loadlib' and dynamic C/Lua binding in
> >general. The idea behind loadlib's "callfromlib" function seems to be
> that
> >there's a Lua "wrapper" that takes care of declaring the function names
> >within Lua and then calling C/C++ in its body.
> 
> I'm sorry, I was talking about my bare-bones loadlib, which only loads the
> library and returns the init function to be called by the host.
> 
> >HOWEVER, the calling prototype within "callfromlib" is the normal "int
> >func(lua_State* L)" which means the called function should do Lua stack
> >handling itself. How can it do this? The normal lua code that it needs is
> on
> >the other side of the dll/so barrier.
> 
> Like I said before, I think this is handled well by the likner, by simply
> listing the Lua libraries as a dependency. Isn't that the easiest thing to
> do?
> --lhf
###########################################
This message has been scanned by F-Secure Anti-Virus for Microsoft Exchange.