Re: Lua modules, paths, man pages etc.

["James K. Lowden" <jklowden%schemamania.org@localhost>]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:46:01 +0200
Marc Balmer <marc%msys.ch@localhost> wrote:

> We need a place for the source code.
> 
> Is src/lib/lua<whatever>/ rasonable?  (Lua modules that are written
> in C are shared objects.).  Or should it be src/lua/<whatever>/?  I
> tend to prefer the latter.

What is the technical advantage to segregating by source
language?  It seems to me src should be organized by function, not
source language.  If ls(1) gets rewritten in lua, why wouldn't the code
be in src/bin/ls?  

My system has 5 executables in /sbin that aren't in C; they're shell
scripts.  There's no /sbin/bourne directory.  If /sbin/nologin gets
rewritten in C, it stays there.  

The same goes for libraries.  I know in e.g. /usr/pkg/lib we have lua/,
tcl/, perl5/, et alia.  But why?  We don't have c++/.  

Organize by function.  That way, someone searching for the source code
or library doesn't have to know what language it's written in.  And if
the implementation changes, the location doesn't.  

--jkl