Re: Triumvirates

[Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin@...>]

On 10/26/2011 1:05 PM, Enrico Colombini wrote:
> On 26/10/2011 19.30, Gavin Wraith wrote:
> > Please excuse a discreet cough from a pedantic user of a minority 
> > platform.
> > I do not think you meant "all", Dirk; you meant "most". My platform will
> > never be able to use the module libraries you mention. It does not even
> > support dynamic linking. One of the key reasons why people like me 
> > adore Lua
> > is that when http://www.lua.org/about.html says "Lua is distributed in a
> > small package and builds out-of-the-box in all platforms that have an
> > ANSI/ISO C compiler" the word "all" is being used correctly.
>
> And I have different versions of Lua, some of those patched, each one 
> with its own set of modules, happily co-existing on the same Windows 
> machine in different project directories. They should also work on 
> another machine by just copying the directory (e.g. via SVN).
>
> I have nothing against people wishing to use Lua as system-wide 
> language, but Lua has many other uses (and users). Requiring 
> installation and forcing a centralized module system (e.g. by only 
> releasing modules that way) could cause significant problems to some 
> of us.
Understood. But how is this a problem?

From what I understand this would be an option, an additional way to 
use Lua. Not a replacement for anybodies use of Lua. Unless of course, 
your use of Lua is a poor ad-hoc version of what this would try to 
accomplish.

This should in no way eliminate or reduce what you are already doing.

If any conflicts arise from its design, with already existing uses or 
installations, then that should be a bug and be addressed.
If necessary with renaming its executable to iLua (borrowed from Lua for 
Windows) or some such. And also creating appropriate paths and 
environment variables for the feature-rich version which do not conflict 
with other installations or versions.

Just a couple thoughts.

Jimmie Houchin