Re: changes in 'require'

[Renato Figueiro Maia <maia@...>]

> 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.

OK, I understand you. However I'd like to understand better the actual 
problem. We would like just to be able to define a parent module (C or 
script) that loads all its submodules, right? But the problem is how we 
can differ a bundle module like this from other modules that just don't 
load their submodules. It is not a good idea to use a different file path 
or name pattern neither loading the module to see if it actually loads its 
submodules because we wouldn't like to impose semantic restrictions on 
module hierarchies. Looking for a different entry point (e.g. a function 
named luaopen) for a DLL may impose an undesired costly dynamic library 
linkage and is not applicable for script bundle packages. Is this right or 
am I missing something?

Thanks for the clarification,

Renato Maia.