Re: changes in 'require'

[Diego Nehab <diego@...>]

Hi,

> A simpler idea is to follow E.T.  Before loading any module "a.b"
> we always *try* to load "a.meta" (or a.core or any fixed name like
> that). Then we load "a.b". It is simpler because we do not need to
> retry, and it also solves the problem of those that prefer the IPL
> approach (just make "a.meta" to load "a"). Less policy, more
> flexibility.

I don't see a problem in always trying to load "a.meta" on require"a.b"
(don't really like the name "core" for this). The idea of trying only on
failure would save time on successful loads. To detail ETs idea,
requrie"a.b.c" would try to load

    "meta"
    "a.meta"
    "a.b.meta"
    "a.b.c"

This would allow an obsessive person to link the entire library tree
into a single DLL. :)

Are the implicit require calls going to fail silently, or are we going
to require users to sprinkle empty meta.lua files all over the place
(biased way to ask, I know)?

[]s,
Diego.