At 9:58 AM -0500 6/25/02, Dave Goehrig wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 09:42:50AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> That'd be cool. Be aware that Parrot, at the moment, has *no*
>> extension API at the moment.
>
>Well the bigger problem for the XS compat layer will be the utter
>lack of perl5 STASHe
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 09:42:50AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> That'd be cool. Be aware that Parrot, at the moment, has *no*
> extension API at the moment.
Well the bigger problem for the XS compat layer will be the utter
lack of perl5 STASHes and GVs. The namespace games are just going
to ha
At 10:53 AM -0400 6/25/02, Josh Wilmes wrote:
>And i think it's worth saying that the XS hook should be a well-behaved
>parrot extension, once the extension API is defined. Having it get too
>intertwined with parrot's guts would be a terrible thing.
Oh, absolutely. The XS interface will be a lay
And i think it's worth saying that the XS hook should be a well-behaved
parrot extension, once the extension API is defined. Having it get too
intertwined with parrot's guts would be a terrible thing.
--Josh
At 9:42 on 06/25/2002 CDT, Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 8:41 AM -05
At 8:41 AM -0500 6/25/02, Dave Goehrig wrote:
>Last night I wanted to see just how much of the API very vanilla
>XS code would require. In the limited sampling I did, I found
>37 distinct functions and macros. Based on this, I'd say a reasonable
>guestimate for minimal core functionality is abou
