Re: Packaging and importing
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Packaging and importing
- From: Rici Lake <lua@...>
- Date: 2005年8月16日 17:39:45 -0500
On 16-Aug-05, at 5:25 PM, Diego Nehab wrote:
3) Drop the support for package return values, they're just confusing
I don't like this idea. One might desire to write a package whose only
exported symbol is a function. Returning that function works and is
useful.
In fact, it's quite common in some styles. If I'm binding an "object"
(with an object-oriented interface, that is), the only function I'm
going to directly export to Lua is the constructor function. Everything
else is accessed via obj:method() calls, and is therefore in the
object's method table (however I might choose to implement that).
There's little point putting a single constructor function into a
package just for the sake of having a package; I personally prefer to
write, for example:
local aThingie = Thingie(<constructor args>)
than
local aThingie = thingie.new(<constructor args>)
but, of course, tastes differ.
Having said that, I could have achieved that effect, if desired:
local Thingie = require"thingie".new
But I find the following somehow more satisfying:
function new(name) return require(name) end
or, if that wasn't available:
function new(name) return require(name).new end
either of which let me write:
local aThingie = new "Thingie" (<constructor args>)
I might not actually do that, but I know people who would :)
All of this is predicated on 'require' not mucking with the globals
table.