Re: Extension packaging

[arnold]

Hi.

<pjfarley3@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> As to the claim that the gawk distribution should just include all
>> the gawkextlib extensions: No, Thank You. The TeX Live distro doesn't
>> include all of CTAN, and the perl source tarball doesn't include all
>> of CPAN.  I will not let the gawk distro become a dumping ground for
>> every extension anyone may write. (Not that people are bothering.)
>> I can't maintain everyone else's extensions and there are paperwork
>> issues as well vis a vis the FSF.
>
> I was not lobbying for gawk to distribute them, nor did I intend to lobby
> for that idea, but I did not say so explicitly.  Mea culpa.

I know. But other people have. That was a "preemptive strike". :-)

> Why can't gawkextlib be like CPAN then?  AFAIK CPAN doesn't require the user
> to recompile the main function code.  No one has to recompile perl when they
> download a CPAN module they wish to use.
>
> Perhaps the extension API architecture is the issue, apparently requiring
> tight integration with the main gawk code?

Yes, as explained in other messages.

> Apologies for my ignorance in these matters if I have misunderstood how
> gawk's extension API works.

May I suggest you read up on it in the manual? :-)

Thanks,

Arnold