On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 12:18:37PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > 3) for the main program, translating most parts to C is probably > relatively easy, and I will probably do it at least partly, little by > little as we use teximakehtml more to debug, although it is low priority. > However, because of HTML customization in Perl, going C (or C++) only > would require an interface for Texinfo::Config and embedding a Perl > interpreter, which is more specialized code and I do not think that it > will happen soon, especially if we keep a dual implementation for > portability on platforms with ABI discrepancies.
If we embed a Perl interpreter for HTML customization, could texi2any go from a Perl program with optional extension modules written in C, to a C program with (optional?) extension modules written in Perl, if enough of it was rewritten in C? (I am not promising to help with rewriting it in C, though.) It would be an "implementation language inversion". I saw you have been rewriting more in C, with there now a file tp/Texinfo/XS/texi2any.c implementing the top level code for texi2any, although don't know what your plans are for this. The TexinfoXML, TexinfoSXML, IXIN and IXINSXML converters converters could be dropped (as I have said before), although these are the simplest converters so it wouldn't help a rewrite very much.
