I've found the problem, and it's nothing to do with Inline. The extra headers are needed in any case; there's no way for me to make the install completely easy... My script just *happened* to be in the same directory as was necessary to make the extras available, ie the source dir of bow. I had forgotten about the implicit "." being in the included header dirs. My bad. >From: Brian Ingerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: libs in modules vs libs in scripts >Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:47:08 -0700 > >On 27/08/01 17:24 -0700, Inline Reader wrote: > > > > Yes indeed, > > > > I do plan to release Bow.pm as soon as it's in a somewhat pretty state. > > > > Also, I would appreciate advice on the interface issues. There are >several > > data structures that could be made persistent (like the "barrel"). But > > should I make functions with *exactly* the same names as in libbow, or >do > > things more perlishly? Any comments helpful! > >I would highly suggest going for a Perlish interface. It's not like >anyone ever studies a C header file before using a Perl extension >module. People just want things that work. And in Perl, they want them >to work like Perl. </rant> > > > (also I'd like to be able to make the install easy, so any advice on the > > original question is still solicited...) > >I'll look into this. > >Cheers, Brian _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
