Re: changes in 'require'

[Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@...>]

> I am assuming that every implicit call to require will behave *exactly*
> like the explicit call, trying all loaders too.

Sure. That is the idea behind my argument of "simplicity".


> Maybe it is the price for an extra search that bothers David. 

Does anyone know how much is that price? As far as I can guess it seems
to be much smaller than the price of loading the module itself (assuming
a typical .lua module).


> Is it easy to override (besides rewriting module())?

It is easy not to use "module". Just put all your stuff inside a table
and return it. (Anyway, I strongly favor the definition of the global
name.)

-- Roberto