-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In a way I'd almost advocate a different namespace than Inline.
Granted, it _uses_ Inline, but how I understand it to work is it does
not _run_ inline.
Part of my thinking is that Inline generally allows you to embed non-
perl code into your source which is then used at runtime. This seems
parallel rather than derived from that concept.
Is there a CodeGen namespace? Would that just have a confusing
dependency on Inline? There are quite a few cross namespace
dependencies, so I don't think it is a horrible breakage of convention.
Just my unsolicited non thoughts on the matter.
On Nov 17, 2006, at 2:18 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
# from Steffen Mueller
# on Friday 17 November 2006 09:36 am:
I'm writing to get a blessing for uploading the distribution to CPAN
since I'm using a namespace under Inline::.
I'm not sure if there's anyone here to bless you :-)
I'm wondering if something like Inline::GenXS might be a better
name for
it. Most of the Inline::$foo modules allow you to inline the $foo
language.
--Eric
--
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it."
--Donald Knuth
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
- --
J.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFFXg0cvxud+cMTf5IRAk1/AKC6EH6fr/VdwI8GI9831HjGrV0Q1ACfZ8jS
M+F+by7X55z8gbbWCRQA4fs=
=qOx2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
