lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


> I like the idea and would insist that the lfs.modes bitset used the
> same terminology as the current lfs.mode string.
	Sure.  That is the idea!

> Other than that, it would be important to map which of the lfs.modes
> would appear as lfs.mode (even if only for backward compatibility),
> since there is apparently some priorization happening, no?
	In fact, as I showed, there is no priorization because the
macros don't allow that and the function we are using (stat) will not
provide information about symbolic links.
	With a new implementation, I think we should define what is the
priorization in the implementation of the deprecated mode field.