On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Paul Moore
<p.f.moore@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/8/24 RJP Computing <rjpcomputing@gmail.com>:
> I don't mean to say this discussions is not a good one, but can I get some
> feedback on the original issue about adding the 'clib' to the default Lua
> Binaries. Thanks.
I much prefer module DLLs to be kept separate from the Lua executable
and DLL, so I'm in favour of this in principle.
In practice, I build my own Lua (to avoid funnies with the VC8
runtimes), so I don't have a direct interest. For what it's worth, I
patched the standard definitions as follows:
#define LUA_LDIR "!\\..\\lua\\"
#define LUA_CDIR "!\\..\\dll\\"
#define LUA_PATH_DEFAULT \
".\\?.lua;" LUA_LDIR"?.lua;" LUA_LDIR"?\\init.lua;" \
LUA_CDIR"?.lua;" LUA_CDIR"?\\init.lua"
So I have a directory structure
...\Lua
...\Lua\bin -> lua.exe, lua51.dll, luac.exe
...\Lua\dll -> lpeg.dll, lfs.dll, etc
...\Lua\lua -> logging.lua, socket.lua, etc
This feels "cleaner" to me, at least.
I'd rather that there was a standard of some sort, whatever it might
be. And I'd rather that it separated the Lua exes and DLLs from
loadable modules - but I'm not sure that anything not in the official
Lua sources can count as a "standard".
I like the name 'dll'.
