[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: [ANN] Microlight (was Re: paving cowpaths with libraries)
- From: Xavier Wang <weasley.wx@...>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:34:19 +0800
2012/2/17 steve donovan <email@example.com>:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Xavier Wang <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> first, may be we can split this module into some sub module. I mean,
>> ml.string/ml.table/ml.functional etc. it would be better.
> Ah, but I already have a library that works like that ;) It's true
> that these are fellows that don't belong together, splitpath and
> compose, it's not elegant. But I'm trying to keep things as simple as
penlight? but it's maybe too big for someone :-)
maybe split to modules is a bad idea with a compact small module. but
to implement it in C in a single so/dll is very easy. I hope we can
have a module that can be compiled in a single ml.dll and have all
these function available. and can offer a ml.lua for other that don't
>> require 'ml.table'.export(_ENV)
> I do like this one, except maybe export() should put the functions
> into either __ENV or the local function environment (we are still in
> that awkward transition phase between 5.1 and 5.2 ;))
export function not only can export thing into _ENV, you can used like this:
and using ml functions in std table module.
I have a mistake :-(, require 'ml'.export(_ENV) will add functions
into table/string...etc. but require 'ml.table'.export(_ENV) will
export table functions into _ENV, that's bad, maybe export(table) will
>> Is that worth? we can discuss a function list in ml, and I have time
>> to implement then in C. some of things I though:
> That's an interesting possibility. I _suspect_ that most of them are
> not going to be much faster in C. (At least on the desktop, LuaJIT
> makes plain jane Lua code run very fast)
not only for fast, e.g. implement bind in C will very easy and needn't
any table allocation. ml.vararg is the same. and it can be compiled
into a big program -- just like game core. sometimes we need only
scripts for logical, and support library are all in one executable
>> is this list complete yet?
> It's very close to core Penlight function set.
I only thought penlight is somewhat too big for me :-(
I want a small but complete library.
> steve d.
>  Happy to be corrected on this, of course. But then the question
> becomes: how fast do they need to be?