On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Sisyphus <sisyph...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sisyphus" > > >> Been away all weekend - I'll have a look at it tonight. (More later, once >> I've had a chance to peruse it.) > > > First thing I noticed is that we now have additional dependencies of (the > non-core modules) IO::String, IO::All, YAML::XS, Pegex and parent.
My .02: I really like the cleaner grammar of Pegex. The "FAIL" rates of Pegex and YAML::XS are higher than the FAIL rate of any of Inline::C's dependencies, including Inline::C itself. It's too bad that CPAN install tools don't yet support enough of the CPAN::Meta::Spec to allow (easily) for alternate dependency chains (at least that I'm aware). If they did, one could specify to try the Pegex chain first, and then the Parse::Regex chain, and then the Parse::RecDescent chain (as a last resort). Since that's still not easy to do in any reliable fashion I just wonder if we could come together to work on the FAILs for those dependency modules (and on up their chains), sort of as we did with Inline::CPP. I'm interested in this too, because it seems like it could also be applicable to Inline::CPP, though I'm not sure that I have the time to learn and write the Pegex grammar for Inline::CPP at the moment. But still, it would be nice to have a more maintainable grammar than what we've got for Inline::CPP currently. I'd love to see the future bring a larger subset of C++ to Inline::CPP's understanding. Dave -- David Oswald daosw...@gmail.com
