[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Finding and loading Lua files
- From: Asko Kauppi <asko.kauppi@...>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:24:09 +0300
22.4.2005 kello 16:45, Mike Pall kirjoitti:
Asko Kauppi wrote:
Having "lua/5.1" in LUA_LDIR means any system scripts will remain
only until the user upgrades to a new X.X Lua version. Say, you have
Lua 5.1, Lumikki and Hamster installed. You "apt-get upgrade",
bringing Lua to 5.2. Poof, the scripts won't be found.
Perl and Python have done it that way for years.
That, per se, is not a reason. :)
Considering the Lua release cycle (1-2 years between minor versions)
this is a non-issue. You won't find a universal mechanism that
covers anticipated future (non-)compatibility, anyway. How do you
know that all your installed scripts will be compatible with
a hypothetical Lua 5.2?
I won't. The samle I gave was considering time when those are already
out, and I believe it to be quite possible to code in a compatible
fashion, at least between minor versions. C side is a different story.
So, while this is not a major issue, it's not a non-issue either. Once
5.1 comes out, it's a practical issue for me concerning Lua-only script
In fact I have both Lua 5.0 and Lua 5.1 installed and I certainly
don't want to mix up the installed modules. In fact they are
not compatible (neither the C modules, nor the Lua modules).
Lua modules can be. But it's up to their author to check and maintain
that, and confirm it as a >=, <= dependency in the package discription.
No promises of future versions would be made.
BTW: Asko, could you please configure your mail client to a sane
posting mode? Attaching the whole posting you are replying to
at the bottom is neither helpful nor readable. Thank you.
Whooo... Using OS X Mail, no-one else has complained. :!
(written for Usenet, but applies to mailing lists as well)
**from the looks of that link, this will generate flames. I disagree,
without flames. I think putting your response at the -bottom- of the
message is grose** ;)