Re: [Plplot-general] PLplot-5.2.0 has just been released!

[<jc...@fe...>]

On Tuesday 21 January 2003 20:06, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:

Hi Rafael!

| * Alan W. Irwin <ir...@be...> [2003-01-21 10:23]:
| > On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Robert Schwebel wrote:
| > > What's the state of the Perl/PDL interface?
| >
| > I don't know about PDL since that is an independent effort (see
| > Doug Hunt's messages to this list right after PLplot-5.1.0 was
| > released last year).
|
| Well, my original Perl bindings code had some limited support to PDL.
| However, I think that Doug's approach should be superior than mine.
|
| > We do have a rudimentary perl interface as part of generic PLplot,
| > but that is unsupported at this time because its developer ran out
| > of time to work on it.
|
| (That is me.  I am still unable to participate to the PLplot effort.=20
| Too many things on the way.)
|
| > Personally, I think we should abandon that approach (which depended
| > on parsing the API from our DocBook API chapter) and go with swig
| > instead.
|
| Well, my approach combined both parsing the XML source of the API
| _and_ usign swig (see bindings/perl5/README).  I do not think that
| parsing the XML source is a bad idea, provided that the plplot.h is
| also automatically generated.  It is unacceptable to have two sources
| of the same information being maintained in parallel.

In that case, let the documentation be generated from the code and not=20
the other way around! And it's easier to maintain plplot.h than=20
api.xml. (apart from the fact that I still can't generate the docs!)

Joao