[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Is the registry needed?
- From: Daurnimator <quae@...>
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 14:58:40 +1000
On 30 September 2015 at 14:50, Sean Conner <email@example.com> wrote:
> It was thus said that the Great Daurnimator once stated:
>> On 30 September 2015 at 14:01, William Ahern <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > I've never encountered naming conflicts when using the registry.
>> I haven't seen one in practice **yet** but I do think about it.
>> I like the idea of matching C typedefs to metatable keys (as used by
>> luaL_newmetatable, luaL_checkudata, etc).
>> The hope actually *being* that other modules might use it too.
>> This way another person may create their own sigset_t containing
>> userdata, but can still use my functions.
> Hmm ... interesting. But it's predicated on similar usage to fully work.
> Yours  and mine  take different approaches to the implementation. You
> have explicit functions to add and remove sets, whereas I took a more
> value-meta-table approach to it.
That shouldn't matter: the user picks which API they want.
The key thing I counted on is that we have the same **ABI** per registry key.
i.e. that `sigset_t *set = luaL_checkmeta(L, n, "sigset_t")` will
always result in a valid sigset_t pointer.