Glenn Linderman wrote:
> Edwin's arguments against the idea seem reasonable; I think it would take some
> compelling benefit to invest in implementing a C type & structure parser in perl, for
> this use. Further, the C syntax doesn't provide for explicitly sized types, and what
> would you do with C's pointer types, which have no equivalent in Perl? If the
>benefit
> was intended to be "can import any C structure as documented" you can't, because of
> pointer issues, and C++ object model mismatch.
You don't see transparency between Perl and C as a "compelling benefit?"
perl5 references and C pointers are very similar things, the fact that
they are not more closer equivalents annoys some C programmers who find
writing perl to be like sprinting in swamped waders: you can do it but
its awfully squishy.
If we're doing a "complete rewrite" then the equivalency can be designed
in from the beginning rather than "bolted on" That's the whole point of
this conference isn't it? Or is it just to sell more O'Reilly books.
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
