John, Ben, +1. I only had time to risk a very brief look, but yes, it looks great, and it is a significant step to add extensibility to PSPP. I'll definitely need some time to understand the whole bindings stuff -- but to have this module is an encouraging start, so thanks a lot!
Another thought I had during the week: The current approach is to use Perl's own XS mechanism to set up the bindings. I don't know much about Python, but I assume it offers comparable means. But what do you think in general about exploring SWIG in this context? Again, this is all unfamiliar territory for me, but my idea would be to use the benefits of _unifying_ bindings to whichever dynamic language comes to mind. It may save some time, and it may even help to get some kind of unified interface, or it may lead to some recommendations, how to design the interface for language <xyz>. SWIG would add another dependency, of course... Just an idea. Cheers Jörg > Follow-up Comment #1: > > This looks great. I'd be happy to have it in the source tree. Maybe it will > encourage people to write more extensive Perl bindings (for example, for > system file input) or bindings to other languages such as Python. > > The patch for using isfinite is similar to the one in patch #6246 (which I > wrote before looking at the Perl patch). > > The paragraphs following "=head2 Variables with differing input and output > formats" don't make much sense to me. I don't understand where input formats > come into the picture. The note about difference between PSPP and Perl epochs > is definitely valuable, though. > > Should there be a way to add a missing value range? ============================================================ Jörg Beyer PHILIPPS-University Marburg Dept. of Psychology Germany _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
