Re: from: Lua Module Function Critiqued

[Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>]

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Luís Eduardo Jason Santos
<jasonsantos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sigh...
>
>
> Sigh indeed.

All of this is relevant to backporting, correct?

My strategy when writing for 5.2:

I have a toolkit that I often `require` in the first line of my module:

_ENV = require'my_toolkit'

The toolkit is a collection of other modules and standard libraries.
For anything that I monkey-patch, I deepcopy the module/table, making
my changes to the copy.

As a result, I don't have access to the global environment and that
global environment stays stock-Lua, unless the consumer does something
to change that.

If this approach doesn't contain surprises that I'm not seeing, then I
believe that it is equivalent to the intent of `module`, and thus I
can safely ignore the on-coming debate about module. :)

Correct?