Front page | perl.wxperl.users |
Postings from July 2008
Don Hutton wrote:
> Thanks to Mike and Huub for their quick and accurate responses. The key
> is that you have to use "wxperl" (shipped with OS X) instead of "perl"
> as your iinterpreter: something not mentioned in any example or other
> piece of documentation that I could find.
>
> I have no idea where the Mac OS X demo copy fits into the Grand Scheme
> of things but it looks very bad compared to the wxPython example that's
> (literally) in the next directory over. That demo has a "README.TXT"
> file that says "Don't use 'python' to run these things: use
> 'wxPython'." When you do that you get an error message that says, in
> plain English, "You're on a Mac: use this other command instead."
Something like this?
madhatter:~/devel/wxPerl/wxDemo mbarbon$ perl -Ilib bin/wxperl_demo.pl
On Mac OS X please run the demo with 'wxPerl wxperl_demo.pl'
madhatter:~/devel/wxPerl/wxDemo mbarbon$
> The
> inclusion of a README.TXT file with the one equivalent line in it for
> wxPerl would raise the number of people willing to investigate it as a
Does this (in README.txt) help?
To install:
perl Makefile.PL
make
make test
make install
then run 'wxperl_demo.pl'; under Mac OS X you will need to run
'wxPerl -S wxperl_demo.pl'.
> viable technology ("technology" = something you don't have to understand
> to use, "art" = something you have to understand fully to use) by many
> orders of magnitude.
I tend to disagree with the definitions above, but the suggestions
are unarguably good.
> Things are about the same for the level of
> commenting in the source code and provide the (given people's time
> constraints) insurmountable barriers to adoption. The Python stuff is
> massively and beautifully commented whereas there are almost no comments
> in the Perl stuff.
Patches are always welcome :-)
Thanks for the feedback
Mattia
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next