On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Alexander Gladysh <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 04:22, Alexander Gladysh <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 23:09, Hisham <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Alexander Gladysh <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Hisham, Fabio, >>>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 00:43, Alexander Gladysh <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: > >>>>> Bug: I can name a rock foo.bar and it will work. But I can't put it as >>>>> a dependency (dot in name is rejected). > >>>>> If dots in names are rejected, they should be rejected early. > > Hisham, please comment on the "LR team" official position for this issue. > > Should I rename all my rocks to get rid of dots as they will not be > supported ever, or should I just wait for 2.0.4 where dots would be > supported? (I can afford to wait in this case.)
Well, since the documentation and the rockspec checker allowed it, one could say the format was underspecified in this regard and the excessive strictness of the dependency checker is a bug. ;) So yeah, I don't see a problem in allowing dots in the next release, but then it's a good idea to properly specify valid rock names. My proposal is then the following pattern: "^[a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9%.%-%_]*$" (yes, explicitly restricting it to the ASCII alphabet; don't want to step into problems with different installations of Lua interpreting character classes differently because of variations in C runtime configuration). -- Hisham _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luaforge.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/luarocks-developers
