RE: [ANN] Lua 5.3.0 (work3) now available

[Thijs Schreijer <thijs@...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org [mailto:lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org] On
> Behalf Of Hisham
> Sent: dinsdag 24 juni 2014 15:44
> To: Lua mailing list
> Subject: Re: [ANN] Lua 5.3.0 (work3) now available
> 
> > Then given your (valid) concerns, "!.\lua\?.dll;!.\?\core.dll" seems very
> > reasonable to me. Because "core.dll" is common and lua inturprets "_" as
> > directories in the dll_exports name, nesting is a "thing" to deal with, no
> > matter what. The only place where this would be an issue is if a dll had
> > direct C entry points and as you say, that would be an application issue
> > that can be dealt with.
> 
> Please no -- foo.core is a common pattern for C-based modules, but it
> is explicitly required with require("foo.core") in the Lua-based foo
> module. Making the "core" part of the name an implicit search would
> break modules everywhere, starting with LuaSocket. One shouldn't be
> "creative" with module paths like that; the naming hierarchy of
> modules, apart from the top-level modules in the standard Lua library,
> belongs to module authors.
> 
> -- Hisham

Hisham is right here, naming those is up to the module author. But `!\lua\?.dll` should not be a problem as Lua files and dll's are different by their file extensions, so I don't see any reason why they could not be mixed in a module tree (apart from it being uncommon from a historic perspective).

Thijs