Re: modules, require, magic

[Petite Abeille <petite.abeille@...>]

On Oct 21, 2011, at 8:43 PM, Roberto Ierusalimschy wrote:

>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Hisham <hisham.hm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Discussing this offlist with Fabio he also mentioned another benefit
>>> of module()-style modules: that one can easily inspect the code
>>> mechanically for global declarations and infer what's exported, while
>>> module()-less-modules make this kind of static analysis a lot more fragile.
>> 
>> LuaInspect's experience has actually been the opposite. [...]
> 
> This is quite interesting. It turns upside down a strong argument in
> favor of 'module'.

Lets not get too distracted by Mr. Manura esoteric endeavors as module, in and by itself, does not impede, nor greatly facilitate, "static analysis" of anything as dynamic as Lua. 

What module does provide is a simple, common, and consistent way to define, well, modules. Why don't we leave it at that?