Re: [ANN] Lua BitOp 1.0.0 released

[Hisham <hisham.hm@...>]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Mike Pall <mikelu-0812@mike.de> wrote:
> David Manura wrote:
>> This looks great, Mike.  One thing though is that 'require "bit"'
>> conflicts with the package name of lbitlib as currently used in
>> LuaRocks and LuaDist.  Then again, does there remain any reason to use
>> lbitlib over BitOp?  Of the various implementations, these two
>> projects look similar enough in design to be combined[1].  (LuaBit
>> also uses the package name "bit", but I don't think that is used as
>> much.)
>
> Lua BitOp has a superset of the functionality of all the other bit
> libraries. It's intended as a drop-in replacement. In fact I've
> released it because of the recent discussion about portability
> problems with lbitlib. There's no point to install more than one
> bit library, so there's no conflict over the module name (maybe a
> package conflict in a distribution).

No package problems in the LuaRocks side -- it was designed to handle
precisely this kind of issue (a local rocks tree can handle both "bit"
modules installed and rocks can specify which version they require).

-- Hisham