Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency
- From: steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>
- Date: 2014年5月21日 14:12:41 +0200
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Philipp Janda <siffiejoe@gmx.net> wrote:
> Me too, because the base directory will often be in PATH, and if you put
> binary modules there, those will take part in the normal DLL lookup for all
> programs.
Good point - maybe call it clibs or some such.
As for multiple versions of Lua, it never occurred to me to put them
together - the Windows Way involves an enormous PATH for just about
every program ;) Silly perhaps, but consistent with the
application-is-a-folder philosophy.
- References:
- Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency, Dirk Laurie
- RE: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency, Thijs Schreijer
- Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
- Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency, Ulrich Schmidt
- RE: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency, Thijs Schreijer
- Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency, Philipp Janda
- RE: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency, Thijs Schreijer
- Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency, Philipp Janda
- RE: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency, Thijs Schreijer
- Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency, Philipp Janda
- Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
- RE: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency, Thijs Schreijer
- Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency, Ulrich Schmidt
- Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency, Philipp Janda
- RE: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency, Thijs Schreijer
- Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency, Philipp Janda