Re: [ANN] Lua 5.3.0 (work3) now available

[Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>]

On Monday, June 23, 2014, Thijs Schreijer <thijs@thijsschreijer.nl> wrote:
> > I don't think there is single argument for keeping those two path elements,
> > other than 'old habits die hard'.
> >
> > Thijs
> >
> > >
> > > For this to be a security risk, it would also need to be one for all of
> > the
> > > other libraries that do the same.
> > >
> > > It's at least one Stack Exchange trip with something along the lines of
> > "I'm
> > > working with a legacy library that..."
> > >
> > > -Andrew
> >
> >
> > Well, it depends.
> >
> > If Lua's REPL is an application, then I could not agree with you more. Then
> > every thing should go into USRPROFILE or APPDATA. If you're saying that
> > won't happen and so they should do this as a compromise because lots of
> > people use LuaRocks, then... Okay? It seems to me that one should be
> > changing Lua rocks, but I follow the logic.
>
> There is no installer, so there is not a an option to place the files in those locations.
>
> >
> > If Lua's REPL is a debugging tool and Lua is a C library that is to be
> > embedded into an application, then I still don't follow you. The way that
> > it works, works out of the box.
>
> My concern is the standalone interpreter. Embedding is advanced usage. It safer to tell and advanced user to add `!\?.dll` to the path than telling a novice he should remove it. Then still; embedding the interpreter with the defaults paths, doesn't sound like a good idea to me. They'll always (or at least should) be customized for that scenario imo. So nothing is lost there anyway.
>
> >
> > This goes back to the last thread. Lua does not have a Windows install
> > script. Your suggestion makes things very slightly wonky for application
> > developers in exchange for getting installed DLLs out of a users path, if
> > they add the Lua install directory to that path. That's valid and I see your
> > point.
> >
> > I don't like the approach. A simple bat file in a contrib directory can put
> > everything in its proper place, if the user wants to install Lua for use
> > from the command line.
> >
> > Failing that bat file, then this is pragmatic.
>
> The other way around works also; a simple bat file adding it back in.
> Just saying; the defaults should be safe.
>
> >
> > Is there a reason that you don't suggest putting the DLLs in the spot as the
> > lua files? Such as in "luainstalldir\lua\?.dll"
>
> Nope, would be totally fine.

Then given your (valid) concerns, "!.\lua\?.dll;!.\?\core.dll" seems very reasonable to me. Because "core.dll" is common and lua inturprets "_" as directories in the dll_exports name, nesting is a "thing" to deal with, no matter what. The only place where this would be an issue is if a dll had direct C entry points and as you say, that would be an application issue that can be dealt with. 

> Thijs
>
> >
> > I don't see the advantage to putting different parts of the module into
> > different sub paths.
> >
> > -Andrew
> >