[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: requirements for binary extensions?
- From: "Thatcher Ulrich" <tu@...>
- Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 16:17:15 -0500
On Nov 15, 2002 at 11:28 +0200, Asko Kauppi wrote:
> First of all, the idea of a 'binary extensions' branch at the wiki is a good
> one. It's easy to do, it's hands-on and it -possibly- could even take us
> somewhere... :)
> Anyways, I would like to know what EXACTLY is it that we'd require from this
> to-be-de-facto linkage add-on. My Glua-X is available as a candidate but I'd
> like to know what others there are. Perhaps we could merge in the best parts
> of several systems?
> Did not find 'luselib' anywhere - does someone know more about it?
> Please send in YOUR top-5 of what you'd appreciate in a
> Lua-binary-extensions system.
> - Asko Kauppi, Finland
> Here's a link to Glua-X at the wiki. If you want the very latest version
> (there are some enhancements) just ask me.
I looked at the page; unfortunately the "original documentation" (for
glua10) link is broken, so I'm not 100% clear on what Glua-X
encompasses, but I get the impression it helps wrap C code to bind it
to Lua (maybe solving a similar problem to LuaState, tolua, luaSWIG,
etc). Anyway, that's a useful thing, but I think partly outside the
scope of a standard for loading binary modules. I.e. any loading
convention will need to be able to load modules whose bindings were
created by any of the possible binding methods (manual, Glua-X,
LuaState, tolua, luaSWIG, etc).
But this is just my first impression from reading that page; I haven't
used the package or browsed the source, so maybe I've misunderstood