[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua on Windows: lua51.dll versus lua5.1.dll
- From: Thomas Lauer <thomas.lauer@...>
- Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:03:05 +0100
Mike Pall <email@example.com> wrote:
> Nick Gammon wrote:
> > My recommendation is to standardize on lua5.1.dll [...]
> The standard DLL name "lua51.dll" has been selected more than
> three years ago. Around twice every year someone comes along and
> thinks "Oh, we absolutely need a dot in the DLL version number".
> Alas, Windows does not like an extra dot in there. Many things
> break when you have an extra dot in DLL names. Depends on the
> version of the OS, on the specific system call, on the library or
> tool used ... it's hopeless. So please let's forget about it.
I am amazed that this issue hasn't been resolved (and RIPped) long ago.
When I first looked into Lua, a good while ago, one of the things I
found baffling was the DLL naming. It's all a pure technicality but for
someone who grapples with a new language and its environment that's not
at all clear. Some libraries wouldn't work with the binaries or with
others... it was all a very fine mess.
As Mike wrote, the "standard naming convention", insofar as there is
one, is to have the version number w/o dots or other embellishments.