> Am 19.05.2018 um 14:40 schrieb Alexander Nasonov <al...@yandex.ru>: > > 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.
It bears my name in the copyright, but it was actually designed an written by a team. If it is in NetBSD, I'd say that team might even grow. > >>> 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. I am also one of the maintainers of it, and I very much welcome co-maintaining this with Sevan. > 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). No, such a fragmentation will not happen: Unlike Perl or Python, Lua does not come with batteries includes. Lua is the language and the engine to run it. The makers of Lua only supply a very small set of modules. luaposix is not among them. luaunix works as well on Linux as it does on BSD. I have heard of large institutions relying on luaunix, just because they trust the developer to have some basic Unix knowledge... > >>> 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
