I'd echo Karl's point, f2c only makes sense if a dependence on libf2c.a is avoided. I greped the slatec code and it certainly contains WRITE statements. This might be in bits we don't use but somebody needs to carefully check.
Also, if we do go for the modular approach then we need to go for a graphics free core, otherwise the whole thing is pretty pointless IMHO. Most issues with building PDL relate to graphics issues of some sort. Finally, while it might be a great idea to get rid of the MakeMaker approach, how big a task is it to make that transition? It would not be nice to see the 'modular PDL' approach go down the line of a 'perl6' type effort that takes N+1 years to get anywhere. I'd much rather see a quick and less than perfect stab at it (not that I would have time to contribute much). Christian On 12/11/2009, at 11:13 AM, Karl Glazebrook wrote: > Just remember f2c depends on a whole slew of support routines in > libf2c.a - though most of these are IO related. > > But there is some work between running f2c on some fortran and have a > pure C code that works. > > Karl > -- Christian Soeller PhD Dept. of Physiology +64 9 3737599 x82770 University of Auckland Auckland, New Zealand fax +64 9 3737499 _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
