Re: [ANN] mergelua

[Petite Abeille <petite.abeille@...>]

On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Mike Pall wrote:

> - module: has not held up to its promise,

On the contrary, module is a raving success. 

> ought to go

Ought to stay to provide a standard implementation for modules.

Paradoxical, the most articulated proponent of module is Roberto himself, before he had a change of heart and, sadly,  turned to the dark side:

"Despite our “mechanisms, not policy” rule — which we have found valuable in guiding the evolution of Lua — we should have provided a precise set of policies for modules and packages earlier. The lack of a common policy for building modules and installing packages prevents different groups from sharing code and discourages the development of a community code base. Lua 5.1 provides a set of policies for modules and packages that we hope will remedy this situation." [1]

"Usually, Lua does not set policies. Instead, Lua provides mechanisms
that are powerful enough for groups of developers to implement the
policies that best suit them. However, this approach does not work
well for modules. One of the main goals of a module system is to allow
different groups to share code. The lack of a common policy impedes
this sharing." [2]

The young and idealistic Roberto will be fondly  remembered by the many mourning little modules he is leaving behind. 

Sadly Yours,

The Orphan Little Lua Module

[1] http://www.lua.org/doc/hopl.pdf
[2] http://www.inf.puc-rio.br/~roberto/pil2/chapter15.pdf