In article <mac-perl.v04003a2eb1ad9c62fca3@[24.48.29.148]>, Chris Nandor <pudge@pobox.com> wrote: >At 10.11 -0500 1998.06.17, Jeff at MacTech wrote: >>This seems like a good idea. They (toolbox and porting) have in common the >>need for knowledge outside of Perl, including knowledge of another >>language and Macintosh programming in that language. I just wonder if we >>can come up with a name which makes it clear that this is the focus--maybe >>mac-perl-toolbox-and-porting? > >Matthias suggested maybe a separate list for mac-perl-porters. I think >that is best; I would like to AVOID the similarity you draw: that toolbox >modules and porting require the same set of "tools". I want general >MacPerl-but-not-C programmers to learn the toolbox stuff. This sounds reasonable. What I was thinking was: as written, the toolbox modules directly mirror Mac toolbox calls, so you kind of need to be able to read Inside Mac to use them effectively (and safely), which requires at least a passing knowledge of C (or Pascal), and definitely requires a basic understanding of the way the MacOS is put together. So it seems that to use them fully you will probably need previous programming experience; at least, the discussion will probably involve discussing such topics, to fill in the gaps for those without such experience. (On the other hand, modules such as your AppleEvents::Simple are moving toward a more Perl-like interface to the toolbox--adapting the toolbox to perl, rather than perl to the toolbox--so maybe some day things _will_ be self-contained. This would be very cool.) -- __________________________________________________________________________ Jeff Clites Online Editor http://www.MacTech.com/ online@MacTech.com MacTech Magazine __________________________________________________________________________ ***** Want to unsubscribe from this list? ***** Send mail with body "unsubscribe" to mac-perl-request@iis.ee.ethz.ch