lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

And then there's the fun part that scripts can be Lua version independent, too.

I'm actually eager to follow by and see what kind of Universal Agreement you may end up with. ;P With the latest suggestion, any scripts & modules one has gathered become void when changing to next Lua version..

POSIX    Lua modules  /usr/local/share/lua/5.1/?.lua
POSIX    C   modules  /usr/local/lib/lua/5.1/?.so


8.12.2004 kello 13:47, Adrián Pérez kirjoitti:

El 08/12/2004, a las 9:39, Asko Kauppi escribió:

But about the local/lib vs. local/share, still.. *nagging* . [...] And I'd personally prefer to keep a module's wrapper (.lua) and the module itself (.so) as close to each other in the filesystem as possible.

After thinkign a bit about that, there's a tricky situation. A .lua script with a shebang in the first line (like "#! /usr/bin/lua) and marked as executable: does it continue to be "inert text" or is it "alive code"?? In my opinion it's alive, as it contains code (even without the shebang and not having execute permission it would be code, indeed).

And, if scripts are "alive code" thay should go into "*/lib" instead of "*/share", isn't it? In LuaCheia we use somethings like "/usr/local/lib/luacheia5" to store both binary modules and Lua scripts because it's easy to do that way with automake -- but now I think it's the better approach.