Re: changes in 'require'

[Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@...>]

> Although I totally agree with you about the importance of a single file 
> distribution package, I don't think that imposing some package policy like 
> the implicit-parent-load is the best solution.

I agree. IPL (immplicit parent load) is proving too complex (in the
sense of understanding its full implications). And the less policy we
need to define the better. (After all, if a module needs its parent, it
can require it.)


> Maybe we could treat the module packed in a single dynamic library as a
> special kind of package (just like packages distributed as a compressed
> archive) and define a new loader for this situation. This way it could
> try to load parent modules if they are reachable by some different
> path or file name pattern (like lib?.so or bundle/?.so). Is this too
> expensive?

The problem with a new loader is that such modules are DLLs, so actually
they do not need a new loader. They don't need a different path either.
There should be a simpler solution.

-- Roberto