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: Compiled perl scripts?
Message-ID: <124823@uunet.UU.NET>
Date: 6 Mar 91 21:38:13 GMT
References: <9103060939.AA07794@shum.huji.ac.il>
Organization: UUNET Communications Services, Falls Church, VA
Lines: 25

In article <9103060939.AA07794@shum.huji.ac.il> amoss@SHUM.HUJI.AC.IL (Amos Shapira) writes:
>Hello,
>	What about perl compiling a script and dumping only the script in
>	binary form to disk?

YES! Please don't fall into the trap tha TeX and emacs did.
Undumping is a real pain in the ass. At least in emacs it makes
sense, because there is only one copy undumped. But to clone
the perl interpreter for every different script compiled is bad.

>	I suppose I'm suggesting here the obvious, but I haven't seen any
>	refference to this option on this list.

Well, you beat me to it. You can use emacs rules: when I give a filename,
first check 'filename.plc' then 'filename.pl' then 'filename' as given.
After all, I don't want to have to call my scripts something.pl.

>	The advantages of this over a simple dump is that you don't generate
>	a copy of the interpreter for every script while you still save the
>	startup overhead.

Exactly.
-- 
		[rbj@uunet 1] stty sane
		unknown mode: sane