Re: Lua 5.1 (beta) now available

[David Burgess <dburgess@...>]

I would be interested in knowing how many people use the standard lua
distribution binaries. I find the standard lua build lacking from directory
functions (like lposix or the win32 equiv) and nor do I need or want an
overweight LuaCheia. Give that my most common use of Iua is embedded
in other programs, this also reduces the relevance of the binaries.

DB

On 11/12/05, Andre Carregal <carregal@fabricadigital.com.br> wrote:
>
> That brings up a related question about the Lua standard binary
> distribution.
>
> I'm surely not qualified to interpret the configuration subtleties that Mike
> pointed out, but would it make sense to think in lua.org as providing the
> complete source for any use of Lua and in Lua Binaries as the way to
> distribute Lua standalone libraries and applications (command line
> interpreter or not)?
>
> Both Kepler and Tecgraf will continue to use Lua Binaries for Lua 5.1, but
> it would be important to know if more people would be interested in using it
> as a binary standard for Lua standalone applications.
>
> For more information on Lua Binaries: http://luabinaries.luaforge.net/
>
> Andre
>
>