[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Basic, no fuss, no magic, foolproof module pattern. [Was: require, module, globals and "magic"]
- From: Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@...>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:24:48 -0300
> But, until then, for me the main issue is to understand most of the
> implications of my approach, i.e. writing a module with basic Lua
> syntax, with clean, linear structure and no special support from
> custom external functions (no "safe_require", "safe_module" or
> similar).
> And whether that kind of module could be robust, efficient, well
> encapsulated, generally applicable, with no pitfalls (or with
> well-known ones!), i.e "simple and foolproof", even if a bit verbose
> (compared with other approaches like yours, which rely on an
> additional framework).
I would say that now the "endorsed by the Lua team" way to write
modules is like this: using clean and basic Lua syntax.
-- Roberto
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Basic, no fuss, no magic, foolproof module pattern. [Was: require, module, globals and "magic"], Petite Abeille
- Re: Basic, no fuss, no magic, foolproof module pattern. [Was: require, module, globals and "magic"], Lorenzo Donati
- References:
- Basic, no fuss, no magic, foolproof module pattern. [Was: require, module, globals and "magic"], Lorenzo Donati
- Re: Basic, no fuss, no magic, foolproof module pattern. [Was: require, module, globals and "magic"], Sean Conner
- Re: Basic, no fuss, no magic, foolproof module pattern. [Was: require, module, globals and "magic"], Lorenzo Donati
- Prev by Date:
Re: Lua semantic higlighting for Vim [Was: Re: Lua Semantic Highlighting for Emacs]
- Next by Date:
Re: Audience for globals discussion?
- Previous by thread:
Re: Basic, no fuss, no magic, foolproof module pattern. [Was: require, module, globals and "magic"]
- Next by thread:
Re: Basic, no fuss, no magic, foolproof module pattern. [Was: require, module, globals and "magic"]
- Index(es):