Re: [ANNOUNCE]: LuaTask 1.5 Final

[Philippe Lhoste <PhiLho@...>]

Daniel Quintela wrote:

> Peter Loveday escribió:
>
> > Ah good, another standard for Lua DLL naming for modules, 
> > "LUA+LIB.DLL". Just what the Lua community needs :)
>
> Sorry, I use Philippe Lhoste's VC projects since Lua 4.0, and I am very 
> comfortable with it. :-(
> But you are right, Lua.dll + LuaLib.dll, or Lua+Lib.dll, or even 
> Lua50dll.dll ( from wxLua distribution), is a mess.
> Can be possible to define a "standard distribution" naming ?
> People could expect any package to depend of the same DLL's, at least 
> for testing/evaluation purpose.

The name sounded familiar... I am happy to see my files are used.

Note it is not "another standard", in the sense I also proposed this 
naming scheme the last time we discuted it...

The original Makefile creates liblua and liblualib.
So I make liblua.lib and liblualib.lib for static include in a project.

But it made sense (for me at least) to name the DLLs Lua.dll and 
LuaLib.dll so the semi-static (or semi-dynamic?) libraries were named 
lua.lib and lualib.lib (these are the libraries that have to be included 
in a project to automatically load the corresponding DLLs, if not using 
LoadLibrary): no name conflict, and I wouldn't use something like 
luadll.lib to make luadll.dll (a bit on the redundant side; well 
liblulib.lib too :-P).

And to offer a convenient DLL with both the core Lua and its standard 
library, I made Lua+Lib.dll and Lua+Lib.lib.

Isn't it logical? :-)

And I can rename the DLLs to include version number...

Note: if a consensus is made toward another naming scheme, of course I 
will adopt it.

--
Philippe Lhoste
--  (near) Paris -- France
--  Professional programmer and amateur artist
--  http://Phi.Lho.free.fr
--  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --