On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 12:31, Robert Lehr wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 05:14:21AM -0400, Kevin C. Krinke wrote: > > I have submitted a wish-list bug-report at rt.cpan.org for > > ExtUtils::MakeMaker regarding a compliment option to the PM_FILTER > > option for Perl Module files called PL_FILTER. > > > > I would like to get everyone else's opinions on the matter as well. > > > > If you don't have any idea as to what PL_FILTER would do, read the > > following POD and think of a ".pl" script instead of a ".pm" (or even > > ".PL") script. > > Great idea! I am surprised somebody has not done this yet.
So was I... > But- > <snip> > > ...I do not see a good reason that these filters should spawn a separate process > to execute a regex for every filter for every file. Well this is a hack to a module that (from what I understand) is being "phased" out by the more advanced and "Perl-Like" Module::Build. > Why not implement "the traditional unix sense" filter in perl? Or change the > module to do it in "the traditional perl sense". I wonder why no one has done this yet. > Or provide the option to do it with either method. > > Or, even better, implement it in perl then the programmer can create all of the > shell-filter processes that they want, e.g., with backticks. Interesting. > What about code-refs, callbacks? I would rather use callbacks than an automatic > separate process. Hmm. I see no reason why I couldn't implement the option to PL/PM_FILTER that would detect the "scalar-pipe" versus the coderef and act accordingly. (I'll post another patch in a few hours.) > ...however you think it should be done. But the _mandatory_ pipe is ridiculous > when we are using perl. I use perl to eliminate pipes, not proliferate them. Excellent philosophy! -- Kevin C. Krinke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Open Door Software Inc.
