I like to keep my programs and libraries separated in folder, sort of inspired by a *nix folder structure (i.e. applications go to /bin, libraries go to /lib, you get the idea).

For applications that's not an issue, you just add the desired paths to the shell environment using shell.setPath, then you can just run them. However things seem to be different for require, which uses hardcoded paths.

The consequence of this is that programs that use require will not start correctly, if the libraries they depend on are not located in the same directory or any of the other hard coded paths. There are two workarounds available as far as I can tell:

• Create your own instance of require with the desired paths changed and use that one instead (as far as I can tell you cannot override the global require method, but I'd gladly be corrected on that one)
• Always use the full path in the require statement in all affected applications (perhaps also doable via a custom lookup function)

Both are not ideal in my opinion as they both require editing the applications to use the modified require or a full path. Especially apps downloaded from somewhere would need to be modified each time to adapt to that folder structure. And passing on applications to a player that has a different folder structure is difficult too, as these changes need to be done again or reverted.

The idea: allow for package.path to be extended, for example via a setting. If a setting with custom paths is present, append it to the hard coded path. This way, players can define their own library folders and keep their programs sorted while not having to resort to editing the programs.

Side note: the CC emulator CraftOS-PC 2 has implemented a feature like that:

package.path = settings.get("shell.package_path") or "?;?.lua;?/init.lua;/rom/modules/main/?;/rom/modules/main/?.lua;/rom/modules/main/?/init.lua"

Ironically this currently causes a difference in behaviour (including their modes to improve accuracy) compared to CC: Tweaked, which is also why I opened an opposing issue. 😄

See related previous discussion/solution: #739 (comment)
Also related #739 and #2122

Dang it, of course the one time I don't double check if there was already a discussion, there of course were some already.

I'll close this issue then, seeing that the idea has already been rejected twice.