On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:21 PM, steve donovan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Hisham <[email protected]> wrote: >> installing two instances (with the hash-bang line pointing to the >> right version) sounds less confusing in terms of setup and >> configuration. > > That makes sense - it would be IMHO a most unusual requirement that LR > support two different versions using one instance! > >> smooth transition. Coding in the common subset of Lua 5.1 and 5.2 and >> testing everything twice doesn't sound very pleasant, > > It's surprisingly trouble free, in my experience. I did some > portability code, and use that, e.g. use the new load() instead of > loadstring + setfenv. (utils.lua from Penlight has the portable > load() ). Otherwise, it behaves like a 'strict' 5.1 (and testing > against LuaJIT had already cleaned up any lost 5.0-isms. > > No reason to ditch the module() calls yet - 'deprecated' ain't 'not > supported' ;)
OK. I'll make a new branch with all that in mind (and Hisham's other comments on github) to keep a clean and clear history. BR, James ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Magic Quadrant for Content-Aware Data Loss Prevention Research study explores the data loss prevention market. Includes in-depth analysis on the changes within the DLP market, and the criteria used to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these DLP solutions. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51385063/ _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
