You are right. Using several separately packed scripts would be too much runtime overhead. And this would lead to several packed files although I would prefer a single file.
But I discovered the --reusable option of pp. When reading the documentation I thought that this is exactly what I need. Of course there are then two variants of the script. A packed one and a normal one. But one more if statement wouldn't matter. Am I right? Is the --reusable option of pp possibly the thing I'm looking for? Thank you. Cheers, Dirk Roderich Schupp <roderich.sch...@googlemail.com> schrieb: >On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 13:58, Dirk Joos <d...@dirkundsari.de> wrote: >> And sorry for asking again. Why isn't it planned? > >Because... there is no plan (at least I don't have one). > >> Don' t you think that this would be an important feature? > >No, I don't think so. > >> What could be a workaround? Perhaps packing each script separately >and then >> calling the packed stuff instead of using a second perl interpreter? > >Sure, if your're willing to accept the runtime overhead. >It also means that you would have two variants of your program - >one when running normaly, the other when running packed. > >Cheers, Roderich -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
