Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2013
* Paul LeoNerd Evans <leonerd@leonerd.org.uk> [2013-12-16 15:35]: > The wording at the beginning starts off by deriding XS for "arcane > syntax", Does it? It quotes that as a common criticism but I don’t see where it embraces it. It reads, to me, as allowing that there is a reason that people think so, without really agreeing with them. > and explains how to write XSUBs without XS. … right after mentioning that XS requires familiarity with what goes on under the hood. So then it goes on to demonstrate what goes on under the hood. > But then the conclusion at the end says it's lots of tedious > boilerplate and XS makes it easier. Exactly. My understanding is that the aim of the article all along is to demonstrate that there is a point to XS, and to show that this is easier to appreciate when you know what XS is abbreviating away for you, i.e. why XS is as it is. > An interesting article but I'm not quite sure what the overall aim is. Didn’t seem the least bit confusing to me. Did the above help you along? Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>Thread Previous | Thread Next