Re: The source file culture

[steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:24 AM, John Hind <john.hind@zen.co.uk> wrote:
> If we want to take Lua in the direction of a general scripting language we
> need a more comprehensive and standardised runtime implementation

Well, I think the community has certainly provided all the bits
necessary for general scripting, but the trouble is of course when we
talk about 'standardized', given that this will involve getting cats
to self-herd.  Standardization involves a lot of work, mostly on the
level of 'what is the signature of the optional function os.sleep?'
and 'should access() be in the io or osex namespace?'.  It will then
require buy-in, and an inevitable time of confusion when the same
facilities are available from two locations, the old and the new. It's
the latter step which is awkward.

> and the module system should be part of the runtime not part of the language itself.

Well, technically the module system is a library and was for a time
implemented in Lua.

pan shizhu says:
> IMO release windows-based binraries to the relatively small amount of
users doesn't seem to help a lot.

Fortunately, it's already happening and should not cause problems for
those who don't like the idea ;)

Restricting the language and its libraries because it goes beyond some
common uses seems ... well, restrictive.

steve d.