[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: [ANN] LuaFileSystem 1.0 Beta
- From: David Burgess <dburgess@...>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:20:42 +1000
Convention #1 (how it is):
I type this reflexively cut and paste it etc.
Your library in changing this is simply different to the rest of the
code in the Lua
Distribution. You might be justified in saying that it "should be this
it makes it less likely that someone can/will build you library with
modification or system configuration.
Why is WIn32 different? (Ask Microsoft). Seriously, the INCLUDE environment
variable with speciifies include directories and search order. Problem
is that we have
have a "system" env. a user "env" and if you are using one of the MS
IDEs we have a
IDE environment and finally the rules for how these environments are applied
depends on whether or not you are using the IDE to do command builds. My
point being is that in WIn32 I am more likely to make a mess of the INCLUDE
env var than on say a Linux system.
If one uses
in a library this MAY be the only library that I have that uses this header and
I am obliged to modify either the environment or modify the usual cl
invocation just for this library.
There are a few exceptions, but most of the Win32 code that I have
dealt with, reserves
the angle brackets for headers associated with the compiler distribution.
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:34:01 -0200 (BRDT), Tomas <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi David and Danilo,
> > > Whilst I understand the logic of putting Lua headers in the
> > > <> , I think this makes some rather heavy presumptions about
> > > how people Lua are using Lua (especially Win32).
> > > I much prefer (and I think it is more appropriate for an
> > > addon package) that the quoted form is used.
> > I don't understand why you prefer the quoted form for an addon package.
> > I think that if you are embedding LuaFileSystem (or any other library) in an
> > application "" makes more sense. But if you are compiling it as an external
> > library (so or dll) <> is more appropriate.
> Sure. Why did you (David) mentioned "especially Win32"?
> What's the difference?
> > > More to the
> > > point, the mix of conventions from the kepler project is a
> > > potential problem.
> > That's why the products are still in alpha or beta stage :-)
> > We are working on this kind of "details".
> > And we appreciate the feedback! Thanks!
> Yes, we are working on this kind of "details", but I can't find
> the "mix of conventions" you mentioned :-(