lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]




On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Paul Moore <p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/8/24 RJP Computing <rjpcomputing@gmail.com>:
> I don't mean to say this discussions is not a good one, but can I get some
> feedback on the original issue about adding the 'clib' to the default Lua
> Binaries. Thanks.

I much prefer module DLLs to be kept separate from the Lua executable
and DLL, so I'm in favour of this in principle.

In practice, I build my own Lua (to avoid funnies with the VC8
runtimes), so I don't have a direct interest. For what it's worth, I
patched the standard definitions as follows:

#define LUA_LDIR        "!\\..\\lua\\"
#define LUA_CDIR        "!\\..\\dll\\"
#define LUA_PATH_DEFAULT  \
               ".\\?.lua;"  LUA_LDIR"?.lua;"  LUA_LDIR"?\\init.lua;" \
                            LUA_CDIR"?.lua;"  LUA_CDIR"?\\init.lua"

So I have a directory structure

   ...\Lua
   ...\Lua\bin -> lua.exe, lua51.dll, luac.exe
   ...\Lua\dll -> lpeg.dll, lfs.dll, etc
   ...\Lua\lua -> logging.lua, socket.lua, etc

This feels "cleaner" to me, at least.

I'd rather that there was a standard of some sort, whatever it might
be. And I'd rather that it separated the Lua exes and DLLs from
loadable modules - but I'm not sure that anything not in the official
Lua sources can count as a "standard".

I like the name 'dll'.

Is 'clib' the name everybody is happy with? Is there a better name?
--
Regards,
Ryan
RJP Computing