Re: Lua distros again

On Feb 7, 2018 18:30, "Sean Conner" <sean@conman.org> wrote:

It was thus said that the Great Dibyendu Majumdar once stated:

> On 28 January 2018 at 16:40, Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@majumdar.org.uk> wrote:

> 1. Should I force all libraries to have a require string that is of
> the format 'supplier.module' ? The problem in enforcing this is that
> it makes the distro incompatible with existing code. A better approach
> may be to use the require string that the module provides but prohibit
> any other use of the same module path. This is easy as I have control
> over which libraries go in.

What is the concern here? So far, Lua has managed without a conherent
namespace for modules. If Ravi is meant to run existing Lua code then you
pretty much *can't* enforce a new requirement.

You can have multiple namespaces covering the same objects in Lua. So along with

pl = require "pl"

I could have

pl = nop_require "general/penlight"

which return the same object. Presumably you bootstrap the second with

nop_require = require "nop_require"

I think the painful issue then is fighting over how the underlying loader handles "real" module names in the "loaded modules" table. There could be other landmines too, though.

Jay