Re: changes in 'require'

[Diego Nehab <diego@...>]

Hi,

> One one hand, that trick of using extra loaders is cute.  On the other
> hand, it breaks the idea that loaders only return a function that, when
> called, opens a module (that is, loaders have no side-effects).
>
> One idea is to have a way for a loader function to "fail" after running
> (for instance returning false). Then the "load_ParentSearch" would
> return a file, but that file when called would return false, meaning
> "keep trying". But that idea subverts the whole current structure
> of require ;)

One way to make this less subversive is to say that a loader's job is to
actually load a package into Lua, not simply obtain a function to be
invoked by require(). With the change, require would check _LOADED[name]
to see if a given loader succeeded.

I actually prefer this.

[]s,
Diego.