Re: new gtk2-perl

[Chas Owens <alas widomaker com>]

Quoting goran kirra net:

> On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 01:19:21PM +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> > muppet <scott asofyet org> writes:
> >
> > > As I mentioned last week or so[1], the non-perlish handling of
> GObject
> > > versus GtkObject references and GBoxed lifetimes and all that
> stuff
> > > really grated on my nerves, and I wanted to take a week or so to
> play
> > > around with ideas for handling it better.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > I'm glad you pushed your ideas down to implementation. It's a
> > rather impressive work. Congratulations! That new gtk2-perl will
> > probably ease up the extensibility of the project - even if
> > stabilizing to the same level of usability that current gtk2-perl
> > should not be an easy task. Good luck for the future.
>
> Me too.
> I have always said that I would accept hard technical reasons not to
> use inline while political reason would have no weight. Show me the
> code,
> and muppet did so! :-)
>
> I think we should put muppet efforts in CVS f.ex. with the module name
> "gtk2-perl-xs" and continue hacking in parallell modules.
> If or when gtk2-perl-xs surpasses gtk2-perl in functionality and
> stability
> we can decide to switch the official releases to gtk2-perl-xs and
> deprecate 
> the inline based module.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> happy hacking
> /göran

The only concern I have with a pure XS implementation is the spector of Perl 6.
 The rumour is that XS will be ditched in Perl 6 in favor of Inline::C.  Of
course Perl 6 looks to be a year or two in the future and will probably require
a complete rewrite of the module(s) anyway so my fears are probably moot.