On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:34:04PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> DS> A subsystem is, in this instance at least, a piece of perl that
> DS> can more or less stand alone, but cross modules
...
> DS> Safe signals live pretty much entirely inside the interpreter
> DS> piece, so don't really count as a separate subsystem.
>
> so you can't isolate safe signals easily.
>
> anyhow, that is my $.02. i do see this modular approach being a big win
> but there are some things in perl which don't fall into one module. we
> have to allow for that in special cases.
Sounds like violent agreement to me. Incidentally, how about the dynamic
scoping mechanism as another subsystem? You might think ENTER and LEAVE are
ugly, but if we need dynamic scoping in C (which is highly likely) then we
need some scoping mechanism to replace them.
--
Intel engineering seem to have misheard Intel marketing strategy. The phrase
was "Divide and conquer" not "Divide and cock up"
(By [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alan Cox)
