On 06/05/2015 01:15 PM, Dimitris Papavasiliou wrote: >> A wild suggestion: you say you're providing a REPL as a Lua module and >> as a standalone binary — if you already have it as a module, isn't it >> simpler to provide it also as a Lua script that requires the module? >> For the end user, experience would be the same, since they would >> simply end up with a script in their $PATH and wouldn't care if it >> internally launches lua or if it's a binary. > > I agree that it's an alternative and, furthermore, that it works just as > well as a native C implementation. I don't like it though, design-wise > and it would mean scrapping my already working C code. I know these are > not very strong arguments and I'd probably consider it as an alternative > if you wouldn't consider allowing the modifications to make LuaRocks > handle binary compilation.
Well, I've tried putting together a Makefile to take care of compiling the binary, and it seems to be working but, given the complexity and the headache I imagine getting this to work for everyone will be, I'm starting to rethink this script-based solution. I think I'll give it a go first. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list Luarocks-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
