A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Something like ++ instead of --.
I think thats ugly. Id suggest simply addding another dash [...]
I find it very interesting to note that although we're talking about
quite different semantics, everyone seems to be wanting to stick to
the ancient syntax
On Jun 19, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Barbie wrote:
Having thought about this a little more over the last 2 days, I have a
suggestion. Following along the lines of Module::Install, a
Module::External
(or appropriate name), is bundled with the appropriate application,
that can
check for compilers,
A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I dont think it requires sub-modules (and extra files cause
extra slowdown, too), just judicious use of eval STRING to
defer compilation of as much code as possible until its actually
needed.
Are you sure that deferred compilation will actually help? If
Jos I. Boumans wrote:
cpanplus reads the yaml and checks for prereqs, and schedules perl
prereqs for loading.
CPANPLUS never reads the yaml file
Maybe that's a stupid question, but why not reading META.yml and
checking (and installing if necessary) the prereqs from here first?
Sbastien
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 03:12:15 +0200
Sastien Aperghis-Tramoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe that's a stupid question, but why not reading META.yml and
checking (and installing if necessary) the prereqs from here first?
I think CPANPLUS is just an installer and reporter. The
configurators
* Johan Vromans [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-19 11:15]:
I find it very interesting to note that although we're talking
about quite different semantics, everyone seems to be wanting
to stick to the ancient syntax of --style command line
options.
I dont see why it is ancient instead of sensible.
* Johan Vromans [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-19 11:25]:
But deferring compilation of, say, 25% of the code?
I dont know how much there is to be saved.
The other option I can think of is kind of wild: do the
option specification parsing/processing that has to be done on
every invocation,
A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The other option I can think of is kind of wild: do the
option specification parsing/processing that has to be done on
every invocation, regardless of the user input, just once, and
then cache the results somewhere possibly as Perl code in the
__DATA__
see below.
Jos I. Boumans wrote:
On Jun 19, 2005, at 4:53 PM, Rob Janes wrote:
i'm not saying that cpanplus's reporting is inadequate, so much as
that i'm saying that it appears to be causing some misclassification
and confusion.
If you're replying to a previous statement, it'd be
i'm not saying that cpanplus's reporting is inadequate, so much as that
i'm saying that it appears to be causing some misclassification and
confusion. so, I'm trying to lay out an accurate reporting of prereq
failures that includes system dependency failures. The issue of
actually resolving
On Jun 19, 2005, at 4:53 PM, Rob Janes wrote:
i'm not saying that cpanplus's reporting is inadequate, so much as
that i'm saying that it appears to be causing some misclassification
and confusion.
If you're replying to a previous statement, it'd be helpful if you
leave that part of the
Johan Vromans wrote:
I have several tools that take different syntax on the command line,
specific for the task. For example, subcommands:
mycmd init db=$HOME/mydb
mycmd load db=$HOME/mydb data1
mycmd load --trace db=$HOME/mydb data1
mycmd --trace load db=$HOME/mydb data1
Yes;
From: Jos I. Boumans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why the need for such an immensive framework? to be able to probe for
any type of file/function on any type of OS is not going to be trivial.
To look for every possibility yes that would be emmense. However, I wasn't
expecting to go that far. There are a
Barbie wrote:
From: Jos I. Boumans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why the need for such an immensive framework? to be able to probe for
any type of file/function on any type of OS is not going to be trivial.
To look for every possibility yes that would be emmense. However, I wasn't
expecting to go that
14 matches
Mail list logo
