Re: about lposix

[Natanael Copa <natanael.copa@...>]

On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 16:02 -0400, Leo Razoumov wrote:
> On 10/17/06, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <lhf@tecgraf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
> > Let me summarize the current state of afairs:
> >
> > [..snip..]
> >
> > I can try to coordinate this by extracting the relevant parts of lposix and
> > the other libraries as needed. But I cannot do anything about Windows...
> > Or if someone else wants to takes this over, it's ok, but we'd still like to
> > discuss what shall be included and what shall not. We must avoid bloat.
> > Again, the point is that it is simple to include any given function, but
> > we have to consider the other requirements: natural Lua interface,
> > documentation, ease of porting, etc.
> >
> > --lhf
> >
> > [1] http://lua-users.org/wiki/ExtensionProposal
> > [2] http://www.keplerproject.org/luafilesystem/index.html
> 
> Luiz,
> I definitely would like to help with the new lposix development.

Me too. I have to write something anyway. I don't want to roll my own
littel lib. I want to add my contributions to a standard lib.

> My platforms are Linux (main), MS Windows (often) and Mac OS X
> (occasionally). 

I have linux and freebsd.

> I think that we should break monolithic lposix module
> in several submodules. I think it was suggested in this mailing list
> sometime ago to group process and job related functionality under
> "os", file-system stuff under "fs", etc. By doing this we make lposix
> more modular.

Agree!

> I would also suggest to create a reasonable test-suite for the
> project. Existing "test.lua" in lposix distribution is not good
> enough.
> 
> --Leo--