 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
Am 04.11.2014 um 19:01 schröbte Hisham:
On 4 November 2014 15:52, Ką Mykolas <kamicc@gmail.com> wrote:And I doubt it's going to be ported. Since 5.3 Lua does have native binary operators, so.......so it should be semi-trivial to write a compatibility layer that maps to either luabitop or bit32?
Judging from `local bit = bit32 or require "bit"` in `posix.lua` that compatibility layer is already in place more or less -- but you have to put one or the other in the dependencies table in the rockspec ...
Maybe `bit32` would have been a better dependency because it is available for Lua 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3-beta (with compatibility switches), but I don't know for sure whether it really works for LuaJIT (which provides some of the same Lua 5.2 C API symbols as `lua-compat-5.2` which `bit32` uses internally).
Or, if `bor` is really the only bit operation that `luaposix` requires, maybe it should provide its own (fallback) implementation and don't specify a dependency in the rockspec at all. Then the library user can decide which bit operations to use.
-- Hisham
Philipp
On 11/4/14, Gary V. Vaughan <gary@vaughan.pe> wrote:Hi Dirk, On 4 Nov 2014, at 17:30, Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@gmail.com> wrote:2014-11-04 19:02 GMT+02:00 Gary Vaughan <gary@vaughan.pe>:Install it with LuaRocks, using: luarocks install luaposix 33.0.0This procedure does not work with Lua 5.3.0-beta. Missing dependencies for luaposix: luabitop >= 1.0.2 gcc -O2 -fPIC -I/home/dirk/include -c bit.c -o bit.o bit.c: In function 'barg': bit.c:83:2: error: #error "Unknown number type, check LUA_NUMBER_* in luaconf.h" #error "Unknown number type, check LUA_NUMBER_* in luaconf.h"Like the last several luaposix releases, luabitop is required (for LuaJIT and Lua 5.1), and not yet ported to 5.3. For that matter, neither have I tried to port luaposix to 5.3 yet. Cheers, -- Gary V. Vaughan (gary AT vaughan DOT Pe)