Alexander Kolbasov wrote: > > "Richard L. Hamilton" wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > Hence, I totally agree with... > > [snip] > > > >From my point of view, function-call-like APIs that deal with binary > > > data, preferably available in both C and perl (the latter for those for > > > whom everything has to be some sort of script), are preferable to > > > new _text_ pseudo files that then need to be parsed from text back to > > > something machine readable, which for particularly _human_ readable > > > formats, may not be both efficient and unambiguous. > > > (along those lines, it would be handy if there were a ksh93 extension > > > that could map C data structures to ksh93 nested variables (using > > > the API for the memory model of the ksh93 binary), not unlike what can > > > be done for perl like that) > > > > Does "perl" have any special support for mapping C structures to > > variables (e.g. some kind of compiler/script - "in" C structure type, > > "out" perl code) ? ksh93 has an API which allows shell variables to use > > native C variables&&datatypes as storage... but I am not sure whether > > this is what you mean... > > Perl has a mechanism (called XSUB) to write glue code between C and Perl. It > is definitely not the nicest part of the language. Using this mechanism you > can export C data structures as Perl objects, but this is, by no means, > automatic.
Do you have any URLs which describe the XSUB stuff ? ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
