"B. K. Oxley (binkley)" wrote:
>
> :-( So much for Grand Unified Theories of Makefile.PL.
All I'm saying is that if a module contains Inline you change:
---8<---
use ExtUtils::MakeMaker;
WriteMakefile(
NAME => 'Binkley',
VERSION_FROM => 'Binkley.pm',
);
---8<---
to:
---8<---
use Inline::MakeMaker;
WriteInlineMakefile(
NAME => 'Binkley',
VERSION_FROM => 'Binkley.pm',
);
---8<---
instead of (the previous way):
---8<---
use Inline::MakeMaker;
WriteMakefile(
NAME => 'Binkley',
VERSION_FROM => 'Binkley.pm',
);
---8<---
That way the expected behaviour is always obvious. You can still mix the
two different kinds of modules in the hierarchy. So I think everything
is as 'powerful' and 'expected' as possible at this point. We haven't
lost any ground whatsoever. We have WON!
FWIW, ExtUtils::MakeMaker already has a WriteEmptyMakefile function, so
there is a naming precedence here.
>
> I'm vaguely contemplating an ISLM for Scheme, particularly DrScheme
> from my alma mater: http://www.cs.rice.edu/CS/PLT/ since it has a lot
> of embedding support already. Would anyone be interested in discussing
> the matter?
Sam Tregar is working on Guile. How's it going Sam?
Cheers, Brian
--
perl -le 'use Inline C=>q{SV*JAxH(char*x){return newSVpvf
("Just Another %s Hacker",x);}};print JAxH+Perl'
