> > As I understood Daniel, he would prefer to skip the tolua access for world > > objects in the short term. > > > > If you succeed to proof that the lua.cc interface functions can be > > substituted by tolua++ ones you may convince him for a long run switch.
Unfortunately we will probably not be able to replace the hand-written interface routines completely. I once tried to do this, but IIRC there were problems with the dynamic_casts in lua.cc. The Object,Item,... classes in the tolua interface we recently discussed were an attempt to get around this problem, but in the end it was less trouble to maintain the existing bindings by hand than to replace them with tolua bindings. > I have no real opinion. I'm fairly confident that tolua++ ones will work. > However if the non-tolua++ ones work fine then there is absolutely no reason > to change except for consistancy. Since Daniel is in change it is obviously > his choice what to do. Hopefully the slightly modified lua.cc code will > work. As long as we get the bindings to work I also see no reason to switch completely to either handwritten or automatically generated bindings. > The main challenge is to update all the scripts that use %upvalues, and > anyhting > else that does not happen to work with lua5. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought upvalues were abandoned in favor of full lexical scoping in Lua 5. In this case, wouldn't the problem be solved by simply %variable with variable everywhere? - Daniel _______________________________________________ Enigma-devel mailing list Enigma-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/enigma-devel
