Hi,
Sorry for the late answer - I am trying to reach a milestone for the
next release and can not answer all requests immediatly.
Tacvek wrote:
Yeah, you are right. I was forgetting modularization. I will say that
lua is definately not optional,
but never-the-less could potentially be swapped for something else.
So use of exceptions converted to lua_errors by code in lua.cc seems
fair enough.
That is definately something to be done in the future.
We had and hopefully will have again a possibilty to describe levels
just using XML without any Lua parts. This would be usefull for
leveleditors. But such an approach would of course never be a
substitution to Lua. But we have to keep in mind that some levels do not
create levels with Lua frames on the stack. Besides that most timesteps
that are executed by the engine start in server.cc and will execute many
methods of different objects withour ever touching Lua.
The only problem is that tolua++ won't build under C++ (actually I
almost got it to work, but because of the inclusion of the SDL cflags
and libs in the default c++ cflags and libs, it would not quite build
right when cross compiling.)
I have what is more or less a solution.
It uses symlinks, because that is the easiest way to satisfy automake.
Before applying the patch you should simlink "tolua.c" and "toluabind.c" to
"toluacxx.cpp" and "toluabindcxx.cpp". (svn add them, of course)
If it is preferable to avoid symlinks, I have a few other things I could
try, but this
current way does seem to work.
Keep in mind that neither Windows nor Subversion supports symlinks. We
would have 2 copies of each source file.
Why is it not possible to use the option "-x c++" as you did for the
compilation of Lua itself?
- Ronald
_______________________________________________
Enigma-devel mailing list
Enigma-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/enigma-devel
