Re: Clamping down on unwanted using "strict"... or others?

[Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@...>]

2018-01-05 11:06 GMT+02:00 sur-behoffski <sur_behoffski@grouse.com.au>:

> Roberto's written a short "strict.lua" script, that resides in the
> etc/ subdirectory of the release, but isn't explicitly installed on
> at least two Debian-descendant distributions that I've used, including
> the source-based Gentoo Linux.

It is not in the typical tarball that you download from lua.org,
which does not have an /etc subdirectory.

> Roberto's script is explicitly compatible with Lua 5.1 and 5.2.  I
> haven't checked whether the 5.3 case works (I'm limiting myself to
> 5.1, for the moment).

I have just tried `lua -i /path-to-5.1.5/strict.lua` from 5.3.4, and can
confirm that the exact script with a 2008 creation date on it still works.

AFAICS the only difference in the LuaRocks version is that the
packager has added LDoc-style comments.

> In summary, I don't need any extra feature that "strictness" gives
> me, and I would strongly prefer that I could issue scripts that
> worked with Lua binary (or source) distributions that worked
> "out-of-the-box", but with "strict.lua" strategically placed to
> be on the require search path, such that I did not have to ask the
> user to install LuaRocks and/or go through other steps.

Why must a 40-line script (7 lines of which is documentation
and 5 blank that has not needed maintenance changes in
almost eight years be a loaded module? You can simply include
it in your code with a comment acknowledging the source.