On Sat, Mar 02, 2002 at 12:24:18PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
> # It confused me at first. Conceptually it seems that there is
> # a sudden jump
> # from perl syntax to C syntax, without any visual alert marks.
> # Reading it again I few times I realise that the above is
> # (almost) C syntax,
> # apart from the => and the V string, but I'm still not sure if
> # I like this
> # hybrid that isn't quite either.
>
> I think we have to leave the vstring in place, but we can probably do
> something instead of the arrows. 'xs_version(0.1)'?
I think I prefer the arrows to anything else. I'm used to arrows.
That looks like a function call. When actually it's defining something, more
like a named parameter. Which is what those arrows meant to me.
It's just that when I see arrows I think "perl" and expect perl syntax.
And then I see bare words and I think "subroutine calls"
Except we've switched to C-like syntax without any visual clues, and I
have to do a double take to realise that these barewords are not perl-like
subroutine calls, but C-like declarations.
I'd just like a visual clue that we're switching.
> Dan's opinion seems to be "let them fend for themselves"--XS functions
> should decode their own arguments.. I don't agree with that, but he's
> the internals designer, not me.
But I suspect that he can be swayed by reasoned arguments.
And this is perl ("there's more than one way to do it") and IIRC
"just many is left as an exercise for the reader" - I see nothing stopping
anyone implementing an "alternative" system that is even better than the
real thing.
(why am I plugging NMS? I'm not even using them, let alone finding the tuits
to help contribute)
Nicholas Clark
--
Even better than the real thing: http://nms-cgi.sourceforge.net/
