Re: link-grammar
On 2015/09/18 11:18, Fred wrote: > On 09/18/15 11:09, Stuart Henderson wrote: > >On 2015/09/18 10:57, Fred wrote: > >>Hi ports@ > >> > >>In our link-grammar port we only have bindings for java - I would like to > >>add the python bindings should I add more flavors? > >> > >>And while here is should I add the other bindings (ie lisp, ocaml, perl?) > >> > >>Or is there a better approach? > >> > >>Cheers > >> > >>Fred > >> > > > >my 2p: > > > >Since perl is in base there doesn't seem much point in providing an > >option to disable that during build. > > > >For python, since the scaffolding is already done, it makes sense to > >continue with a no_* pseudo-flavour and BUILD_PACKAGES handling. > > > >I'd defer adding other bindings until there's an actual need for them. > >It just means more things to check when updating the other languages > >and if nobody's actually using them that's wasted effort. > > > > Hi Stuart, > > Thanks for the hint - I'll just stick with adding the python bindings as the > link-grammar developers recommend: > > http://search.cpan.org/~dbrian/Lingua-LinkParser/ > > for perl. > > Cheers > > Fred > Unless I'm mistaken Perl is already there in -main so I don't think anything needs doing for that :)
Re: link-grammar
On 09/18/15 11:09, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2015/09/18 10:57, Fred wrote: Hi ports@ In our link-grammar port we only have bindings for java - I would like to add the python bindings should I add more flavors? And while here is should I add the other bindings (ie lisp, ocaml, perl?) Or is there a better approach? Cheers Fred my 2p: Since perl is in base there doesn't seem much point in providing an option to disable that during build. For python, since the scaffolding is already done, it makes sense to continue with a no_* pseudo-flavour and BUILD_PACKAGES handling. I'd defer adding other bindings until there's an actual need for them. It just means more things to check when updating the other languages and if nobody's actually using them that's wasted effort. Hi Stuart, Thanks for the hint - I'll just stick with adding the python bindings as the link-grammar developers recommend: http://search.cpan.org/~dbrian/Lingua-LinkParser/ for perl. Cheers Fred
Re: link-grammar
On 2015/09/18 10:57, Fred wrote: > Hi ports@ > > In our link-grammar port we only have bindings for java - I would like to > add the python bindings should I add more flavors? > > And while here is should I add the other bindings (ie lisp, ocaml, perl?) > > Or is there a better approach? > > Cheers > > Fred > my 2p: Since perl is in base there doesn't seem much point in providing an option to disable that during build. For python, since the scaffolding is already done, it makes sense to continue with a no_* pseudo-flavour and BUILD_PACKAGES handling. I'd defer adding other bindings until there's an actual need for them. It just means more things to check when updating the other languages and if nobody's actually using them that's wasted effort.
