Re: changes in 'require'
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: changes in 'require'
- From: Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@...>
- Date: 2005年7月08日 13:37:20 -0300
> I am assuming that every implicit call to require will behave *exactly*
> like the explicit call, trying all loaders too.
Sure. That is the idea behind my argument of "simplicity".
> Maybe it is the price for an extra search that bothers David.
Does anyone know how much is that price? As far as I can guess it seems
to be much smaller than the price of loading the module itself (assuming
a typical .lua module).
> Is it easy to override (besides rewriting module())?
It is easy not to use "module". Just put all your stuff inside a table
and return it. (Anyway, I strongly favor the definition of the global
name.)
-- Roberto