On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 11:11:57PM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:38:36PM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote: > > Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 04:16:49PM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote: > > >> Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> > Like it or not, people put lots of init code into BEGIN blocks, if > > >> > nothing else for backwards compatiblity with 5.005. perlcc has to > > >> > compile real world programs. > > > Meanwhile we *do* have INIT blocks will do what you want without doing > > the impossible. (Well, admittedly, educating programmers might well be > > nearly impossible too, but dammit the behaviour of BEGIN blocks has > > been *documented* since before there was a Perl compiler. And the > > behaviour of INIT and CHECK blocks have also been clearly documented > > since they were interested. > > > > This really is a case of 'READ THE FSCKING MANUAL'. > > I can't see that anything is going to solve what Schwern wants, becuse what > he wants is a solution backwards compatible to 5.00503 and preferably 5.004
I want 5.004_05 compatible code (or any syntacticly correct piece of Perl code) to be able to be compiled correctly (eventually) with the latest version of perlcc. If there's Perl->C translation issue as to why that's not possible, ok. But I know from a B standpoint all the information is there to handle BEGIN blocks. -- Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ Perl Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One Now I fight for wisdom. http://sluggy.com/d/010204.html
