On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 10:14:20AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> The module loaded can define the routines as either regular
> perl subs or opcode functions (the difference is in calling convention
> mainly) and could be the standard mix of perl or compiled code.
>
> Would someone care to take a shot at formalizing the system?
Well, this is currently called XS. (Although you can't do user-defined
ops in XS, but it's *theoretically* possible. The margin of this email
is not wide enough, etc.) Are you asking for someone to define a replacement
for XS, or just a method for doing what we currently do with, say, glob or the
heavy unicode things?
--
If they can put a man on the moon, why can't they put them all there?
