Re: anything wrong by not using "module" ?

[Gaspard Bucher <gaspard@...>]

Thanks for the answer, Matthew. I'll add a return and will continue to not use "module".

Cheers,

Gaspard

On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Matthew Wild <mwild1@gmail.com> wrote:

On 27 March 2011 17:44, Gaspard Bucher <gaspard@teti.ch> wrote:
> Thanks for the reply Eduardo. My question was more focused on not using
> "module" to declare the class as in:
> module("lk.Dir", package.seeall)
> If we don't clutter the global namespace and declare methods on the library,
> is there any need for "module" ?

No, which is partly why it doesn't exist in 5.2. Just return your
module table (you didn't in your original example).

Regards,
Matthew