I'm virtually new to XS, GBAR set up my typemap and gave me a few examples
of how to get and return my c dtat types to perl. Will Inline handle the
same stuff that XS->typemap does. I'm all for easier than the 3400+ lines
of XS I'm currently supporting. But the thought of rewrite scares me.
The XS has been done and I've seemingly corrected all the errors and have
not touched it in months.
When I started this project Graham said thatr SWIG would not handle what I
was trying to do, will Inline?
=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+
___ _ ____ ___ __ __
/ _ )(_) / /_ __ / _ \___ _/ /_/ /____ ___
/ _ / / / / // / / ___/ _ `/ __/ __/ _ \/ _ \
/____/_/_/_/\_, / /_/ \_,_/\__/\__/\___/_//_/
/___/
Texas Instruments ASIC Circuit Design Methology Group
Dallas, Texas
214-480-4455
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Brian Ingerson wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> I'm back from YAPC. It was an excellent conference. Inline was well received. I
>didn't even sniff my email, and that was quite refreshing. :) It's good to be back
>though, and I'm ready to hack on Inline like never before. I've got plenty of good
>new ideas, and even more good old ones. Onward ho.
>
> One idea came up last week, and I thought I'd run it by you. Inline::XS. At first I
>thought "Yea gods, please no", but it makes sense. It's just like Inline C except
>that you write your C mixed in with your XS. And it's so easy to implement, that I'll
>just add it as an option to Inline::C. It's more or less "raw mode".
>
> use Inline C => DATA =>
> NAME => Foo =>
> ENABLE => 'XS';
>
> greet("Ingy");
>
> __END__
> __C__
> #include "EXTERN.h"
> #include "perl.h"
> #include "XSUB.h"
>
> int greet(char* name) {
> printf("Hello %s\n", name);
> }
>
> MODULE = Foo PACKAGE = main
>
> int
> greet (name)
> char * name
>
> So why have I just allowed something that could be done so simply, to be done the
>hard way? There's a couple reasons.
>
> 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. And the
>seasoned XS hackers almost never write to our list or even me personally. I find this
>confusing, since we are all doing the same thing, albeit using different techniques.
>There are a lot of very bright people who are still doing XS the old way. :) Since
>Inline used in this manner will still provide all the ease of use features, I hope to
>trigger more collaboration between groups.
>
> The other reason is that there are still a few things that can be done in XS that
>Inline doesn't provide for. It's the 80/20 rule. On one hand, I don't like making the
>options too complicated. In other words, the temptation might exist to try and tackle
>XS, just because your doing something wrong with your Inline. But for the legitimate
>cases, where regular Inline just can't hack it, I want to provide an alternative.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers, Brian
>
