David Coppit wrote:
> It seems to me that inlining (benefit #1) isn't always warranted. For
> example:
>
> - Can Inline wrap a C library without modification?
or any object library, for that matter?
> We could de-emphasize inlining and focus on the automated linkage:
>
> - Allow the "use Inline" to specify a file to read from instead of
> requiring that the foreign code be embedded.
> - Provide an alternative to Inline_Stack_* that doesn't impact the C
> code. One idea is an ARGMAP which specifies how byref arguments to a
> function map to multiple return values. Another is an inlined
> function declaration which has additional syntax for specifying the
> Perl argument mappings.
>
> I realize that these suggestions may not be quite in line with the
> goals implied by the name "Inline". However, doing this sort of thing
> would allow Inline to automatically generate the linkage to unmodified
> C code, allowing folks to do the kinds of things I described above.
> This would also likely remove the last reason to use XS directly. :)
>
> Unfortunately, my suggestions may increase the learning curve of
> Inline back to the level of XS...
having to RTFM twice to use the _advanced_ features is nothing anyone
will object to
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187
Keep Dan Sugalski away from my stuffed animals
