Re: Why does the default cpath not have lib?.so in it?

[Sebastien Lai <237482@...>]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Matthew Frazier
<leafstormrush@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alternatively, Lua could use ".lua.so" or ".lua.dll". This both makes it clear that (a) it is a normal .so or .dll file, and (b) it is intended for use with Lua.
>

That's a very good idea actually - you should file a proposal! I would
definitely support it.
This way naming interferences would be eliminated as well - imagine a
Lua binding to zlib that is named "zlib.dll" (even though the 'real'
zlib dll is usually named 'zlib1.dll') - it would definitely help
eliminating them.

I wonder why I haven't thought about that yet... ;-)