Sorry I've been taking a while to get those Perl bindings out, I had a
somewhat busy weekend and had to go back to my parents house for a couple
days where they're disconnected from the internet.
In order to build the perl bindings, I've had to compile megahal.c as a
shared library. Since the tcl and Python libraries are also compiled as
shared libaries, would anyone object terribly strongly if megahal.c was
compiled as a shared libary as itself, and then the tcl, Python and Perl
bindings were themselves compiled as shared libraries, but linked against
the more general megahal shared lib?
This would also allow bindings to be distributed separate from the MegaHAL
distribution itself; All that would be required was a previous install of
MegaHAL. (As opposed to downloading the MegaHAL Perl package from CPAN,
which would either have to distribute megahal.c with the code, which I
don't want to do, or having to copy megahal.c into the Perl directory so
that I can link with it, which is even worse.)
I'd also like to throw out the idea of creating a separate directory (or
directories) for other language bindings - the Perl bindings consist of
something on the order of 5 or 6 files, and dumping them in One Big
Directory will probably turn things into a mess.
For example we could have:
Cory Spencer <cspencer@...?
Cory Spencer <cspencer@...> writes:
> Would anyone object terribly strongly if megahal.c was compiled as a
> shared libary as itself, and then the tcl, Python and Perl bindings
> were themselves compiled as shared libraries, but linked against the
> more general megahal shared lib?
That's the idea. Although I think there are a few things that ought
to be fixed up to make sure that megahal is 'lib' safe.
> For example we could have:
David N. Welton
tel +39.049.8043411 fax +39.049.8043412 cel +39.348.2879508