Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from February 2001
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 10:14:20AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > The module loaded can define the routines as either regular > perl subs or opcode functions (the difference is in calling convention > mainly) and could be the standard mix of perl or compiled code. > > Would someone care to take a shot at formalizing the system? Well, this is currently called XS. (Although you can't do user-defined ops in XS, but it's *theoretically* possible. The margin of this email is not wide enough, etc.) Are you asking for someone to define a replacement for XS, or just a method for doing what we currently do with, say, glob or the heavy unicode things? -- If they can put a man on the moon, why can't they put them all there?Thread Previous | Thread Next