Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency

[Jay Carlson <nop@...>]

On May 21, 2014, at 7:32 AM, Philipp Janda <siffiejoe@gmx.net> wrote:

> Am 21.05.2014 13:00 schröbte Thijs Schreijer:
>> 
>> The current 'luaconf.h' defaults for LUA_PATH and LUA_CPATH, dictate most of this already (unless you change them too).
>> 
>> The defaults currently are (added linebreaks for readability);
>> LUA_PATH
>>   !\\lua\\?.lua;
>>   !\\lua\\?\\init.lua;
>>   !\\?.lua;
>>   !\\?\\init.lua;
>>   .\\?.lua"
>> 
>> LUA_CPATH
>>   !\\?.dll;
>>   !\\loadall.dll;
>>   .\\?.dll
> 
> The paths relative to the executable are nice for programs embedding Lua, but I'm not sure they are suitable/enough for the standalone Lua interpreter. E.g. I often install lua52.exe and lua51.exe in the same directory (together with some other command line tools), and there may be cases (external package managers, limited privileges) where you can't or don't want to write to the Lua installation directory ...

Which reminds me: should a mingw target be basing these off %HOME% and/or All Users? Maybe I've spent too much time around machines without write access to C:\Program Files and written a few too many "Install for all users, or just me" installers.

Although apparently I don't care enough to boot one up to look at what environment variables are actually set, or the brave new world of post-Vista ProgData. I saw Windows 2000 machines long after they were allegedly dead and buried, and I have some Office XP macros still working though multiple generations of compatibility layers. William Gibson[1] and William Faulkner[2] both had parts of it right: "the past is never dead. it's just not evenly past."

Jay

[1]: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Gibson#Quotes and I think I'm playing on multiple meanings of "even".

[2]: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Faulkner#Requiem_for_a_Nun_.281951.29 which is I think playing on the similarity of "past" and "passed" in spoken English.