On 7 June 2015 at 18:06, Dimitris Papavasiliou <dpapa...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Sounds like a plan! If you need any assistance, hit us up here! -- Hisham ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list Luarocks-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
