|
From: | Manuel Collado |
Subject: | Re: Extension packaging |
Date: | Tue, 10 May 2022 09:05:20 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 |
El 10/05/2022 a las 6:52, pjfarley3@earthlink.net escribió:
<pjfarley3@earthlink.net> wrote:I was not lobbying for gawk to distribute them, nor did I intend to lobby for that idea, but I did not say so explicitly. Mea culpa. Why can't gawkextlib be like CPAN then? AFAIK CPAN doesn't require the user to recompile the main function code. No one has to recompile perl when they download a CPAN module they wish to use.
Well, CPAN (or CTAN) mostly distribute Perl (or TeX) sources. Perhaps precompiled to intermediate bytecode.
This is not the case of Gawkextlib. Gawk extensions are not GAWK source snippets. They are C sources that must be compiled to native binaries of every target platform to be usable, exactly like the C sources of gawk itself.
This is why extension binaries should/could be distributed as part of the Linux or other OS distros, like the gawk binaries. Or compiled by the interested users themselves.
Perhaps the extension API architecture is the issue, apparently requiring tight integration with the main gawk code?
Yes. Gawk extensions are in fact extensions of the internal gawk core C sources.
Apologies for my ignorance in these matters if I have misunderstood how gawk's extension API works.
No problem. Thanks for your interest. Regards. -- Manuel Collado - http://mcollado.z15.es
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |