Wojciech Kocjan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Comments should be C style comments.
> I can't bare the fact that C style comments cannot be nested... And
> /* */'ing the code is my habit, I can't turn to
> #ifdef UNDEFINEDDEFINE
> #endif
> Ok, I'll check out the code and probably change it a bit...
If you don't fix the style, and I end up including the code, I will,
as I want the code to look reasonably uniform. But I would appreciate
receiving code that more or less looks like the rest of mod_dtcl:-)
> > I'll have a look at my own parser, too, and see what it would take to
> > extract *just* the parsing code.
I've extracted the dtcl parser into parser.c, in the CVS tree. It was
actually slightly easier than I'd immagined... probably due to some of
the reworking I've been doing.
> Actually, I was thinking of choosing which one is faster. I'd have
> to write a part for creating pure Tcl code, probably reuse of your
> code...
By all means, create some tests and let's see the results:-)
> I'd hate to mess around with your project, but maybe my code (which
> uses memchr() instead of byte-by-byte browsing) is faster, so it
> would be wiser to use mine.
libc does do buffering, so it shouldn't be generating a syscall for
each getc...
> Also, I'd like to hear opinions from people on this list if <?= and
> <?dtcl could be useful for someone except me?
Comments? I don't really like <?=, because it's a special case that
makes code harder to read, and less immediate for new users. <?dtcl
might be ok, although if people have .ttml files, they probably ought
to realize that it's not PHP (one would hope, at least!).
--
David N. Welton
Free Software: http://people.debian.org/~davidw/
Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/
Personal: http://www.efn.org/~davidw/
Work: http://www.innominate.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
