Re: changes in 'require'

[Adrian Sietsma <adrian_groups@...>]

Roberto Ierusalimschy wrote:
> So here goes another proposal to solve the specific problem of "whole
> package in one DLL" that tries to change as little as possible from
> work6 require:
>
> - add another loader after the others:
> when requiring "a.b.c", it trys to find a module "a" in the C path;
> if found, tries to find the function luaopen_a_b_c there and returns it.

that would be enough for my requirements.

> (I assume that there is no need to pack whole *submodules* as one DLL,
> so there is no need to look for a.b or anything like that.)

i would agree with this

> (Unlike the original C loader, it is not a hard error not to find the
> open function there. It is simply a soft error meaning "module not found
> here".)
>
>
> If we really want to care for the obsessive people:
>
> - add yet another loader after the others:
> when requiring "a.b.c", it trys to find a module "ALL" in the C path;
> if found, tries to find a function luaopen_a_b_c there and returns it.
> (I assume that there is no need to pack whole *submodules* as one DLL,
> so there is no need to look for a.b or anything like that.)

this would seem overly elaborate (from my point of view).
i would be happy with just the first option.

> The main benefit is that those changes to do not affect the basic
> behavior of require. They only add well-behaved loaders for specific
> goals. No side-effects, no hidden modules being loaded, no failed
> requires. They only search for the module in extra places.

3 cheers for that.

Adrian