Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Brian Ingerson writes:
>> Most importantly is acceptance. I don't know how how many of you
>> have noticed, but there is nearly no cross-posting between the
>> Inline and XS mailing lists.
>
>Until we talked at YAPC, I had three misconceptions:
> * Inline was for trivial extensions
> * Inline mandated you put your C code in a heredoc in a Perl module
> * Inline had one model of compilation: your extension is compiled the
> first time it's used, and then cached.
>
>At YAPC I learned:
> * Inline exposes almost all the Perl API, so you can do pretty much
> any XS thing with Inline, only it's easier :-)
> * Most Inline modules are written with the C code in separate files
> where it belongs. The heredoc stuff I'd seen was an aberration.
> * Inline also has an h2xs-like mode, where you make and make install,
> and it's compiled and installed in much the same way as a regular
> XS module.
>
>I can't speak for others, but that's why I'd always figured Inline was
>no match for XS. Now I'm a convert.
My understanding was things were "Inline" as well.
As compiling Tk takes several minutes on a 1GHz machine, and an hour+
on a slow one it did not seem to be worth looking at.
If it has a way to build .so/.dll file at install time I will take a look.
--
Nick Ing-Simmons
http://www.ni-s.u-net.com/
