develooper Front page | perl.perl6.internals.api.parser | Postings from November 2000

Re: Backtracking through the source

Thread Previous | Thread Next
David Grove
November 30, 2000 03:23
Re: Backtracking through the source
Message ID:
then... "either in perl, or in C"


From my understanding, "API" is the set of functions internal to Perl and
PerlXS that allow C to access Perl internal structures, functions, etc.,
for the purpose (or effect) of "writing" "Perl" in "C" (SvPV(whatsis)).
I'm talking about either writing it so that the source filter (creole
parser) is interpreted Perl, or compiled C: beginning with Perl, possibly
moving to C for efficiency if needed. C being a yet-to-be-defined exposed
API. I know what I'm talking about: whether I'm communicating it
effectively has yet to be determined.

If this is inaccurate, please make a correction rather than just pointing
out that I'm wrong. I'll never learn anything unless you do and won't be
able to contribute my best unless we're able to use the same terms in the
same way. I've gone through extreme lengths to attempt to understand these
terms as they are being used, and I thought I had it pretty well licked.
Feel free to interject correct semantics where needed. "Contribute to my
understanding and I will contribute to Perl." Maybe that should be a new
Perl maxim. To me, more than any internal or linguistic changes, this is
what Perl 6 has over Perl 5... a change in attitude of the enlightened
toward the ones seeking enlightenment. It is a logical fallacy for the
enlightened to moan and groan about wanting a person to contribute and
needing more help, and then refusing to assist that person in his first
steps of contribution. It creates an exclusionary catch-22.

Dan: In any PDD generated from this group, we really need to define for
the "semantically challenged" the terms that are used within it: the
definitions already given, and those that pop up as necessary. One of the
huge problems with p5p is the learning curve of terms used... and the
problems caused by that training time, closing out the initiate.
Otherwise, we might as well write the PDD in medieval southwestern
Swahili. The official perl documentation has often been criticized for
being written to exclude the initiate in the perl language. In 1996 I
didn't understand much of it, but I do now. Even so, I don't completely
understand the internal language used by the p5p. Mastering perldoc
doesn't help there. Perhaps PDD's need a DEFINITION section altogether as
a part of the PDD spec. Modern contract legalese requires this in certain
contexts so a judge and jury can have a clue "what the heck those computer
people are talking about".

Simon Cozens <> wrote:

 > On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 03:30:28AM +0000, David Grove wrote:
 > > For this, I'd probably look for it to be writable either in perl or
 > api
 > You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
 > --
 > Pray to God, but keep rowing to shore.
 >  -- Russian Proverb

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About