On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Pierre Chapuis <catw...@archlinux.us> wrote: > ltn12 could probably just be a separate module, it is not so tied to > luasocket, it defines a generic interface for I/O.
This is true, but we must accept the world as it is... Personally I also don't like abuse of the global namespace since it is so tricky to debug. It is not a bad thing that module() is dead. I think module writers should be aware that modern Lua programmers (especially those who work with big codebases) tend to be allergic to globals. If I was to add another rule, it would be that require 'foo' should never return `true`. That breaks the tidy assumption that 'local foo = require "foo"' always works. Otherwise, people can implement modules as they see fit, as long as they document their interfaces. I used to be too fond of global metatable hacks. E.g. overriding % for strings to basically mean 'format'. I've been busy ripping this kind of thing out in the search for pure code that cannot stand on _anyone else's toes_. >> -sometimes it makes sense to add to an existing namespace - e.g >> LuaExpatUtils adds lxp.doc. A clarification - this module did not modify lxp's behaviour in any way, just provided some utilities, particularly a way to dump out LOM structures to a string. So this is a lesser sin - putting a module into some other project's namespace. (I don't think it even put a doc subtype in the global lxp) steve d. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list Luarocks-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
