I like C::TinyCompiler because it gives you a clue about
what the module does: C language + tiny + compiler.
--Chris
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:07 PM, David Mertens
wrote:
> Another idea is C::TinyJIT. It's even more descriptive. But C::TinyCompiler
> sounds better.
>
> Thoughts? Votes?
> David
Another idea is C::TinyJIT. It's even more descriptive. But C::TinyCompiler
sounds better.
Thoughts? Votes?
David
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:37 AM, David Mertens wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Chris Marshall wrote:
>
>> How about Devel::TCC for the bindings/interface/control part
>
>
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Chris Marshall wrote:
> How about Devel::TCC for the bindings/interface/control part
I looked through other modules with the Devel:: prefix (thanks to
MetaCPAN's ability to do this search). Most modules here are development
tools, such as debuggers and memory ins
How about Devel::TCC for the bindings/interface/control
part and Alien::TCC (of course) for the detection and
installation?
--Chris
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 8:57 AM, David Mertens wrote:
> Hey everyone -
>
> In short, I have written a set of bindings for the library underlying the
> Tiny C Compil
Hey everyone -
In short, I have written a set of bindings for the library underlying the
Tiny C Compiler and I want to know what package name I should use. I would
prefer a top-level TCC package, in particular because I envision a large
set of derived modules. Thoughts?
David
*Motivation and fea
