Re: Why does the default cpath not have lib?.so in it?
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Why does the default cpath not have lib?.so in it?
- From: Sebastien Lai <237482@...>
- Date: 2011年9月14日 17:29:34 +0200
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Matthew Frazier
<leafstormrush@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Alternatively, Lua could use ".lua.so" or ".lua.dll". This both makes it clear that (a) it is a normal .so or .dll file, and (b) it is intended for use with Lua.
>
That's a very good idea actually - you should file a proposal! I would
definitely support it.
This way naming interferences would be eliminated as well - imagine a
Lua binding to zlib that is named "zlib.dll" (even though the 'real'
zlib dll is usually named 'zlib1.dll') - it would definitely help
eliminating them.
I wonder why I haven't thought about that yet... ;-)