dynoplibs in core or no?

Patrick R. Michaud pmichaud at pobox.com
Tue Jun 1 20:38:31 UTC 2010

On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 09:41:19PM +0200, NotFound wrote:
> > it would even be worthwhile to step back and re-think whether all the ops
> > that were moved out of core really should have been moved.  If every
> > non-trivial program now needs to load several dynop libraries, is there
> > really any benefit?  (I do not mean to prejudge the answer, only to remark
> > that it might be worthwhile to address the question, now with the benefit
> > of a little hindsight.)
> That's not entirely true. Winxed now avoids the usage of the ops moved
> to dynops and can compile himself, which is not a trivial task.
> However, it does by using the experimental method stdhandle not
> approved for permanent presence, otherwise it can't print error
> messages.
> I certainly don't think one must load any dynamic part to be able to
> write a diagnostic message. How can you report a diagnose about
> failing to load dynops?
> Please don't answer "Write diagnostics to standard output".

I agree with NotFound++.  The removal of the printerr opcode is
one place where I think the ops removal went just a bit too far.
There may be others, but that's definitely the one that sticks 
out to me.


More information about the parrot-dev mailing list