Re: requiring modules with a C and Lua part

[Terry Bayne <tbayne@...>]

I've had some thoughts of my own on this... the embedding of lua code within the binary file; but I don't want to lose the advantage of being able to modify LUA code "on the fly".  To that end I have toyed with the idea of:

1.  Creating a "bundled" executable, that contains embedded LUA code.
2.  Add options to the executable to "extract" the code to real files.
3.  Add option to the executable to "re-embed" the lua code if changes are made.

Just the beginnings of an idea - it simplifies distribution, but allows inspection/modification of the LUA code.

One down side is that it wouldn't likely be all that portable across platforms....

Any thoughts on this approach?

Thanks
Terry

> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 07:30:42PM -0200, Reuben Thomas wrote:
>
>> I'd rather not embed the Lua code: it makes development and
>> inspection harder. It's a pity to obfuscate what you don't have
>> to.
>>
>
> It does the opposite, too, though: it introduces new error cases
> (or makes existing ones more likely), like mismatched binaries and
> code, and having to locate code on disk.  If the Lua code is
> embedded in the binary, then a lot of that goes away--things can
> still be built incorrectly, but installation errors are reduced.
>
> (For development, it's good to have both available.  I don't want
> to rebuild a binary to change Lua code.)