> -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Conner [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: donderdag 2 mei 2013 2:32 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Luarocks-developers] The use of C 99 in Luarocks > > It was thus said that the Great Hisham once stated: > > On 1 May 2013 19:23, Philipp Janda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Btw., I believe compiler support for C99 should be some form of > > > (external?) dependency (maybe like the magic "lua" in the dependencies > > > table), so that Visual C++ users get a more informative error message > > > why some module wouldn't build for them. > > > > > > dependencies = { > > > "lua ~> 5.1", > > > "c >= 99", --> maybe like this? one could even do > > > -- "c == gnu99" --> for compiler specific modules, but IMHO > > > this is going too far ... > > > } > > > > > > An alternative (or maybe an additional feature) would be some form of > > > compiler overrides like the current platform overrides, but I think a > > > clear message what went wrong is more difficult in this case. > > > > Those are interesting ideas. Specifying the language variant in a > > high-level/compiler-independent would be best, but some sort of > > compiler overrides could be useful too. We kinda do that already by > > having "mingw32" as a platform type... > > I like the idea of " c >= 99" since it parallels the Lua dependency, and > can be used to change the compiler options.
Would LR be able to check the dependency? Or would it just fail if it wasn't satisfied? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 _______________________________________________ Luarocks-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/luarocks-developers
