At 11:01 AM 8/1/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>The word "pluggable" gives me the willies. I feel like things like
>REs should have one blessed implementation and set of capabilities. I
>don't want to have four modules in my program, each of which requires
>a different RE engine.
I very much agree here. I've no problem if someone wants to do Weird Things
with regex objects so the wacky regex engine's completely encapsulated.
(And thus guaranteed to be around, otherwise you couldn't get the Odd
Object in the first place) Given the pain involved in writing a regex
engine this would keep the numbers down quite low. (Perhaps to two--the
normal one and the fuzzy engine)
>I also don't think that Perl should become a Big Fat Pig[tm] like
>GNOME, where you need a half-zillion different shared libraries, each
>of which comes from a different source, just to run a program.
Absolutely, positively, yes! Perl should require exactly two things: A
functioning C compiler and a functioning build environment. (Which may, if
we write a make-ish thing in perl, consist of a bootstrapping compile
script in the native script language) If folks want to use libwhatever they
can darned well use it in an *optional* module. Building GDBM.pm with perl
if you've got GDBM at build time's fine. Requiring GDBM to build perl in
the first place definitely isn't.
I think it's time to go update the job description and get some RFCs out.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
