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

[Tim Caswell <tim@...>]

Are there systems where you have both .dll files and .so files?  I'm not aware of any, but I mostly work in Linux so I may be ignorant.  As far as node's case, it's not ambiguous, _javascript_ files are .js and native modules are .node.  On linux the .node is a .so file with a pre-defined API interface.

At the same time, I was originally confused when learning node that .node files were actually vanilla .so files.  So if you want things to be clear I think the .lua.so extension is a neat idea.

Just sharing my experience and perspective.  I understand I'm new to this community, so I may be way off base and apologize for any misunderstanding.

-Tim Caswell

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Sebastien Lai <237482@googlemail.com> wrote:

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... ;-)