At 03:44 PM 2/1/2001 +0000, Simon Cozens wrote:
>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?
None of the above. What I'm looking for is the pieces that turn the use of
a function into an automagic use of the module containing that function.
This includes stuff like some sort of function registry, a means of getting
functions on to and off of the registry, any sort of restricted behaviour
we might want to enforce on the automagic uses, and stuff like that.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
