 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
On 22 Oct 2011, at 01:24, Sam Roberts wrote:
OK, anyhow, we've all got other stuff to do. At least at this point nobody is under the illusion that dropping module() is universally considered a positive move, though I'm sure its irreversible.
Dropping or refusing to include a feature is never universally considered positive in a community. However I'm still under the impression that dropping 'module' is positive in all cases debated so far. First because 'module' was superfluous in Lua 5.1 to begin with. It was interesting only to promote one recommended (and complex) way to write and publish modules, which is still possible to be done in Lua 5.2, although it is not recommended anymore. I used 'module' in my libraries only because it was the "standard" way, but I don't feel like I'm losing something now, because there still is a "standard" way (although different) to write modules compatible both with Lua 5.1 and Lua 5.2. And this new way is simple enough that it does not require a helper function. A simple documentation about how to write modules suffices. Finally, for the whole Lua 5.1 module portability issue, I believe that providing a 'module' function in Lua 5.2 is actually the easiest part [1,2].
[1] http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2010-06/msg00313.html [2] http://www.keplerproject.org/compat/ -- Renato Maia Computer Scientist Tecgraf/PUC-Rio __________________________ http://www.inf.puc-rio.br/~maia/