Chaim Frenkel wrote:
We should be able to represent
any packed structure. We should be able to handle anything that an
pack/unpack format can currently handle.
...
The raw structures could be passed between perl and the XS unchanged.
the COBOL redefines capabilities.
...a method of
"David L. Nicol" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Porter wrote:
we should also support recursive data structures,
as in some functional languages. E.g. (pseudocode):
define foo as {
short a;
foo b; # exists at first only "in potential".
This is a bit limiting.
I'd offer a more flexible approach. We should be able to represent
any packed structure. We should be able to handle anything that an
pack/unpack format can currently handle. Except that the data does
not have to be moved out into an array/hash.
This might fit in with
ad1 TITLE
types and structures
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: David Nicol [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 17 Aug 2000
Version: 1
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 122
=head1 ABSTRACT
We adopt C base types, and C structure syntax.
=head1 DESCRIPTION
the C programming language has a
Tom Christiansen wrote:
Tom Christiansen wrote:
C type declarations are pretty universally despised.
By whom?
This is news to me. I have always thought that the C type declaration
is a concise and platform-independent way of declaring a packed
structure, and effectively hiding
