[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
> 1. It is much more intuitive and it is immediately obvious what is
> happening here. Compare this with
>
> s/$next_pair_rx/$arg=$2;$pat=$&;''/eo;
Ok, I'll buy this. Of course, for non-Perl programmers (which I
hope still includes me!), none of this is completely clear, but the
function interface is signifcantly better.
> 2. In the long run it makes it much easier to maintenance l2h. For
> example, suppose we wish to reduce l2h's memory requirements and
> process the input line-by-line. With get_next_argument this would
> simply be a matter of rewriting the subroutine. With the current
> approach one would have to change almost the entire script.
This is a big point; I agree.
> 3. This is how I implemented it in l2h-ng. 8-)
Cool! Do you consider l2h-ng suitable for large conversion projects
that couldn't easily switch back, or should I wait? I'm guessing I
should wait since it still carries the "-ng" designation.
I noticed that you are getting $_ passed in, and then performing a
destructive operation on it; should $_ be removed from the interface
to these functions? That seems desirable if you want to hide a
line-based input system behind the whole thing.
The current functions in latex2html don't take any parameters, which
I think is the correct interface. It doesn't appear to be defined
such that it knows whether an environment or a command is being
processed, because that affects the regular expressions it uses; it
looks like its only correct for environments. So to use it as it
stands, I get only limited benefit. Being able to use a single
function when implementing either commands or environments would be a
major boon (due to simplicity of the interface), but would have to be
supported in the dispatcher. Is this done in l2h-ng, and are there
plans for including this feature in l2h 98.x?
-Fred
--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive Reston, VA 20191
