text: On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:50 PM, steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Francesco Abbate <gslshell@gmail.com> >>Talking about point 2, I don't know but I've got the idea that Lua >> does not have a really good set of libraries. > > No standard libraries - that's one of the Python/Lua differences. The > Three do the kernel and we're supposed to supply the OS ;) A lot of > good code has been produced, but not so much consensus. I wonder if it's time to start thinking about specifying a basic set of standard libraries; not in the sense of 'endorsed by the Lua developers) since we know that's not their job. Another way of putting this: what are the functions you find yourself needing to rewrite for yourself? And then to agree on a core API which satisfies as many of those needs, but keeping the total function count to less than a hundred. E.g., a candidate would be a split() function which takes a string and a regular expression and returns a table; nearly every non-trivial Lua package has one of these and it is actually a more delicate operation than it looks at first. Not a new idea, of course; there is stdlib and my Penlight (which was partly inspired by frustration with stdlib). On the non- Lua side, there is Mark Edgar's extension proposal (which is BTW not about extending the core):. Namespacing is an important concept, which the Perl people understand well (David M can elaborate on this) Even if we could agree on some namespaces, that would be progress. steve d.