Re: Problems with lposix on win32

[D Burgess <dburgess@...>]

On 1/18/06, Chris Marrin <chris@marrin.com> wrote:
> Rici Lake wrote:
> >
> > On 15-Jan-06, at 6:19 PM, D Burgess wrote:
> >
> >> I agree with this.
> >>
> >> On 1/16/06, Edgar Toernig <froese@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>> PS: I don't like the name osex.  I'd simply put them into os.
> >
> >
> > I agree with this, too. Loading the extended os package should extend
> > the existing os package, not create a new one. Truly platform specific
> > os interfaces could go in separate packages or subpackages (os.macosx)
> >
>
> In looking at the 5.1 code, it seems that loading the os package goes
> through a different line of code for registry (luaL_register) than an
> external package (ll_module). The code is somewhat different, for
> instance, luaL_register does not put an _NAME propertry in the table.
> Can I therefore do a 'require "os"' and have something reasonable happen?
>
Methinks Edgar had in mind that you would use

require"osex"   or require"os.ex"

given that you writing a C module , you can populate whicever table you
like, in this case os.

Or did I misunderstand your question?
DB