[physfs] Lua Bindings

Daniel Aquino mr.danielaquino at gmail.com
Thu Jul 16 16:40:01 EDT 2009

Then the user can chose to alias io to physfs modle or disable  
io:....   Of course your physefs should look like the io module  
then...   But do you really io could properly be re done using  
physfs?  I think the code would still need to be aware unless it uses  
all relative paths and understands that it can't access the real fs as  

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 15, 2009, at 11:14 PM, Gerry JJ <trick at icculus.org> wrote:

> Den Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:48:50 -0400
> skrev Daniel Aquino <mr.danielaquino at gmail.com>:
>> Has anyone ever shared lua bindings for physfs ?
> I've done a couple times, but never really shared anything .. I could
> maybe dig one up and clean it up a bit ..
>> Mainly all I need right now is dofile() and require() to use  
>> physfs...
> Don't forget loadfile.  Also, if you want it to be complete,  
> everything
> in io, package.loadlib, os.execute, os.remove, os.rename, maybe
> os.tmpname.  Or just nil them.
> Well, depends what you want to do..  Just PhysFS *support*, or
> inability to use anything else ..
>> I figure "physfs" would be a good module name to hold the  
>> functions...
> I usually just replace the entire io module (well, only implementing  
> the
> parts I actually use..), so that all io go through physfs  
> automatically
> and I don't have to worry about it.
> (This obviously won't work with code that use Lua's C api for loading
> stuff though.  Not much to do about that .. Lua uses stdio all over  
> the
> place internally, so adding internal support isn't easy either.)
> - Gerry
> _______________________________________________
> physfs mailing list
> physfs at icculus.org
> http://icculus.org/mailman/listinfo/physfs

More information about the physfs mailing list