On Jul 22, 2006, at 7:59 AM, John Peacock wrote:
Ron Savage wrote:
I don't know all the inner details, but this M::B and version
dancing gives me the strong impression that something is terribly
wrong here at a fundamental design level.
Clearly something's wrong, but it may not be anything b
On Jul 23, 2006, at 8:10 AM, Chris Dolan wrote:
On Jul 23, 2006, at 8:01 AM, Johan Vromans wrote:
John Peacock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The pure Perl implementation is newer, but no less stable.
So what is the reason to continue the XS version, except maybe as a
separate module for the
On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 09:17:17AM -0700, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>
> I'll be hanging around OSCamp and loitering in the hallway around OSCON
> at random intervals in this coming week. Any chance of getting an M::B
> BOF/hackfest going?
Eric and others:
I will be interested in that. I expect to
Chris Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As John said yesterday, the XS version is the reference
> implementation and the PP version is a port.
He also said that it is 'as stable', so it is as good as the XS
implementation.
> The XS version is already in core for bleadperl, so the PP version
>
demerphq wrote:
On 7/22/06, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2) The Complex Problem: Dual XS/PP modules are not hard to do (e.g.
Params::Validate), but they do require robust compiler detection across
platforms,
Im a little confused about this one. I can think of a few modules that
prov
On 7/22/06, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2) The Complex Problem: Dual XS/PP modules are not hard to do (e.g.
Params::Validate), but they do require robust compiler detection across
platforms,
Im a little confused about this one. I can think of a few modules that
provide dual implemen
On Jul 23, 2006, at 8:01 AM, Johan Vromans wrote:
John Peacock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The pure Perl implementation is newer, but no less stable.
So what is the reason to continue the XS version, except maybe as a
separate module for the few cases that require speed?
As John said yeste
John Peacock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The pure Perl implementation is newer, but no less stable.
So what is the reason to continue the XS version, except maybe as a
separate module for the few cases that require speed?
A clarification: when distributing (real) Perl applications to (real)
cu
