Reuben Thomas
Reuben Thomas
@akinomyoga Sounds like a good idea to me!
> Would it be a good idea to make this clear in the readme? Similarly it would be good to know what I should do for 0.9.1; there's no 0.9.x...
Thanks very much for taking the time to give detailed answers to this newbie!
The test for this issue started passing unexpectedly for me, since I merged today's commits.
See https://travis-ci.org/luaposix/luaposix/jobs/51387861 : one appears to be passing, but not the other (unless I am misreading the log).
Looks dubiously small and unmaintained to me. And let's not think about (irrelevant) size but ease of use. gnulib requires autotools, that's its burden. But for that you get an...
But WHY does it bother you?!
I mean marking in the docstring/programmatically, just as we do with obsole{scent,ete} APIs.
I would rather make type-checking mandatory. luaposix is mostly I/O and/or system calls, i.e. the overhead will not be significant.
I'd be inclined to mark only three things: 1) bindings whose details change for some reason, 2) (non-maturity-related) anything non-POSIX that gets in [FOR A REALLY GOOD REASON!] and 3)...