RE: requiring modules with a C and Lua part

["Jerome Vuarand" <jerome.vuarand@...>]

It's not to obfuscate things but to make package distribution easier. A single file is always easier to distribute than several when they are interdependant, especially when they have to be in different final places (in that case package.path and package.cpath).

Embedding text in an executable is easier than the opposite, so distributing a dll/so file may be the best thing to standardize in these cases. Personnally I don't like it much, so almost all my own mixed Lua/C modules rely on luatcc: I embed C code in Lua strings, and compile it dynamically at run time.

-----Message d'origine-----
De : lua-bounces@bazar2.conectiva.com.br [mailto:lua-bounces@bazar2.conectiva.com.br] De la part de Reuben Thomas
Envoyé : 1 novembre 2006 16:31
À : Lua list
Objet : Re: requiring modules with a C and Lua part


On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, David Burgess wrote:

>> Is there a standard neat way out?
> Neat - there are a few schemes for embedding the Lua code in C code 
> e.g. WIndows resource files/DLLs(bin2res) and Luiz has a scheme for 
> Unix.

I'd rather not embed the Lua code: it makes development and inspection harder. It's a pity to obfuscate what you don't have to.

--
http://rrt.sc3d.org/
poetry, n.  the art of squeezing blood into a stone