Front page | perl.perl6.internals.api.parser |
Postings from November 2000
then... "either in perl, or in C" better? 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 <simon@cozens.net> 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 in > api > > You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. > > -- > Pray to God, but keep rowing to shore. > -- Russian Proverb >Thread Previous | Thread Next