Sevan Janiyan wrote: > On 19/05/2018 11:36, Alexander Nasonov wrote: > > The main page of the repository says it's incomplete. > > "This module does not aim to be complete, it merely contains functions > that I needed at some point of time"
OK, my statement wasn't very accurate but I find it very unlikely for one-man project to be (accidentally) complete if it doesn't aim to be complete. > > Does anyone plan to make it complete or near complete? > > I was thinking along that line. Continuing on the idea of the fully > scriptable operating system. Why not have bindings for the items we > include in base, not necessarily external third party components but > core os and our homegrown parts (netpgp, bozo,...). This would be ideal > for a workshop where you want to give a taste of what's possible and > build up from there. If you have time and energy to write and maintain code, I'm all for it. However, unix(3lua) will create a fragmentation: if you write code for POSIX-compatible OS (e.g. Linux) you use luaposix unless you're on NetBSD, in which case you should use unix(3lua). > > Wouldn't be easier to take luaposix and add missing (NetBSD > > specific?) bits. > > Seeing that it was Marc's work and he is of this parish, it was a nice > compliment to the other work he has done and we are lacking such a > component. Marc probably voiced his concerns of luaposix on the lua-l mailing lists in the past but I can't find anything at the moment. Marc, what were your arguments for not using luaposix when you wrote your module? I could only find this message: Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 09:39:01 +0100 From: Marc Balmer To: Lua mailing list <lu...@lists.lua.org> Subject: Two more Lua modules on github/mbalmer >... > The unix module contains Unix functionality I needed for some of my > projects like fork(), select(), etc. It is not complete nor does it > aim to be complete. And it is not a replacement for luaposix either. > See it as a Unix grab-bag for now ;) >... Alex
