Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!rbj From: rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim) Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl Subject: Re: why is this in h2ph Message-ID: <120572@uunet.UU.NET> Date: 30 Jan 91 02:30:14 GMT References: <1991Jan8.073648.7186@uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU> <11216@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> Organization: UUNET Communications Services, Falls Church, VA Lines: 33 In article <11216@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes: >h2ph doesn't attempt to define %sizeof, however. Tom's h2pl/mksizes >program will try to do that for you. > >But it's all jiggery-pokery. Hopefully we'll get something based on >C's debugging stabs that will be a bit more robust. How about predefining %sizeof for us Larry! A reasonable approximation might be, `if you have to mess with it in perl's C code, it then a user might want to know about it as well'. >The whole "include" paradigm is somewhat undisciplined, however, even >in C. There's probably several research projects in there. I don't think so. The solution is simple really. I could kill the ANSI C committe for failing to include the #require statement or just changing the meaning of #include to a require. I applaud you for your choice. I read a style guide from one of the Bell guys (Pike?). One of his prohibitions was include files including other include files. The inclusion control is done at the wrong place; inside the file rather than around the #include. It is not uncommon for things like to be included ten (and ignored nine) times in a single compilation. >Larry print unsort split(//," ,Jaaceeehhklnoprrrsttu") -- Root Boy Jim Cottrell Close the gap of the dark year in between