> I would also include the Reuben Thomas' bitwise logical operator library,
> but I am a bit reluctant to add non-official extensions. Perhaps as a
> secondary DLL?
I included bitlib in my EPOC port, but I agree with your reservations (I
didn't include it in the RedHat RPMs, but that's just a straight build). On
EPOC I already have enough bits, and the big problem is that there's no easy
way to dynamically add libraries to a Lua state from OPL (you can't get hold
of DLL symbols by name at run-time).
Under Windows, however, making a secondary DLL seems perfectly reasonable,
though it might be nice to wrap up loading it and opening it in a state (and
other potential secondary DLLs) in a call accessible in the main Lua DLL.
> The regex library is interesting too, but needs to use an external regex
> library, so it is likely to bloat the binary. A secondary DLL is the logical
> place for such a library. (Speaking of the Windows world, of course.)
That sounds about right. On Linux I use the GNU regex library, which is
built into glibc, and hence causes no bloat. Henry Spencer's regex library
compiles up to about 34Kb under Linux as a shared library, which is fairly
economical. I think it might even have been already porteed to Windows; I'll
soon know more as I intend to port it to EPOC, whose DLLs are based on
Windows DLLs and built with the same tools.
http://sc3d.org/rrt/ | impatience, n. the urge to do nothing
I finally managed to download your binaries archive (which doesn't appear to
be up-to-date with your project files). Simply allowing cookies to and from
your site wasn't enough; I had to stop using Junkbuster altogether...grr...
One question: the Lua.exe and LuaC.exe binaries seem to be statically
linked. What's the point of this?
http://sc3d.org/rrt/ | certain, a. insufficiently analysed
Reuben Thomas wrote:
>I finally managed to download your binaries archive (which doesn't appear
>be up-to-date with your project files). Simply allowing cookies to and from
>your site wasn't enough; I had to stop using Junkbuster altogether...grr...
You have downloaded the previous version I proposed. As I stated in my
previous mail, if you want to create the DLLs, you have to clean the
projects, otherwise they will use the .obj files created for the .exe which
are statically linked.
I corrected this in my new projects, but I am waiting to see if my resource
version strings are OK for the Lua team before releasing it.
I can send it, though.
>One question: the Lua.exe and LuaC.exe binaries seem to be statically
>linked. What's the point of this?
I first tried to mimic the previous release of Lua (3.2). I dropped that in
the new version, everyting is dynamically linked, giving much smaller
Philippe Lhoste (Paris -- France)
Professional programmer and amateur artist