Re: Dll namings

[David Burgess <dburgess@...>]

So can someone explain the rationale for separating the LUA API entry
points into a separate DLL/so from the library code e.g. lbaselib, ltablib etc.
For the relatively small amount of code and 6-7 entry points, I deduce that 
the logic behind this is not size or  number of entry points.
I have tried one DLL and found it convenient for my use.
db

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:57:20 +0300, Asko Kauppi <asko.kauppi@sci.fi> wrote:
> 
> And then there's LuaX, of course, which doesn't need the DLL approach
> at all. :)
> 
> (Just had to tease you, over and out... ;)
> 
> 23.8.2004 kello 14:43, Daniel Quintela kirjoitti:
> 
>   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.
> >
> > Thanks Peter,
> > Daniel
> >
> 
> 


-- 

db