Re: a modest chainsaw

On Sep 16, 2008, at 12:02, Eric Wilhelm wrote:

> Because you want to capture the output of a command or because you  
> want
> to have quoting bugs?

The former.

>> What do you plan to replace these things with?
>
> If I knew that to a sufficient level of detail to make it clear, I  
> would
> have code.  Perhaps you would like to meet up and help with the  
> design?

Not really. I don't really care about this stuff, as long as it works.  
And so far, for my uses, what's there has worked.

> I've been thinking that the Compat needs its own UNIX/Windows/etc
> classes - or maybe just tables of methods which are installed in the
> Compat object at compile-time.  But basically some of it goes in
> Compat.

Um, isn't Compat just for generating a Makefile.PL?

> Other parts could maybe be made into Module::Build->sys->something(),
> such that there is a more compact object which could be more easily
> tested and decoupled where necessary, etc.  Implicit in this is the
> idea of collecting the setup and knowledge of the system and making it
> be distinct from the builder.

Sure.

> I guess the guiding concept would be "does an author need to override
> this method to create their custom build class?" - if that answer
> is "no", then the method really belongs in a utility or some other
> small piece which M::B then 'hasa's.

The other question, of course, is has an author used an existing  
method in a subclass or Build.PL. If the answer is "yes", you'll need  
to provide some backwards compatibility for those authors, at least  
for documented methods.

> Still only a sketch.  I suspect that whatever we come up with will  
> also
> inform the plugins scheme.

Really? I thought that you were basically just talking about a utility  
for manipulating file names and providing access to the system.

> But first, there's still this t/xs.t failure.


Right. No takers on that, yet?

Best,

David