Notice: Any messages purporting to come from this site telling you that your password has expired, or that you need to verify your details, confirm your email, resolve issues, making threats, or asking for money, are
spam. We do not email users with any such messages. If you have lost your password you can obtain a new one by using the
password reset link.
Due to spam on this forum, all posts now need moderator approval.
Entire forum
➜ MUSHclient
➜ Perlscript
➜ any alternative?
It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed.
Refresh page
Posted by
| finnish
Russia (18 posts) Bio
|
Date
| Sun 28 Sep 2003 11:51 AM (UTC) |
Message
| is there any alternative to get working perlscript?
i mean without activeperl. maybe? |
she never loved me why should anyone | Top |
|
Posted by
| Shadowfyr
USA (1,790 posts) Bio
|
Date
| Reply #1 on Sun 28 Sep 2003 06:35 PM (UTC) |
Message
| Not really.. Mushclient relies on something called COM to talk to the script engines and the engines back to Mushclient. ActivePerl's 'engine' is an ActiveX control, which uses COM to communicate. 'In theory' you could use a different version of Perl as long as its engine supported COM, but Mushclient wouldn't have a clue how to use it, since the ID used to talk to ActivePerl is hard coded into it.
The only other alternative would would to built a Perl engine into the client itself, but that would add a lot of size to Mushclient, especially since it would mean adding support for talking to other COM objects into the client, instead of allowing the existing engines to handle that. Adding such extended COM support correctly is in my experience 100 times more complicated in itself than it would be to build the actual script engine.
As for why Nick doesn't just add some sort of option to let you give it the ID of any engine you want and have it use that one, it isn't that simple. It took several tries to figure out how to get Mushclient to talk to Python correctly and support for a TCL engine has been suggested, but so far not successfully implimented. Using a new engine is sadly no where near as simple as just plugging a cord into a wall socket. Each one has some quirk that makes talking to it different.
With ActivePerl it was a matter of shear luck, since it is part of a collection designed by Micro$loth and accessible through the same engine interface, itactually has a consistent way of being used. The fact that it may not be the best implimentation is unfortunately secondary. | Top |
|
Posted by
| finnish
Russia (18 posts) Bio
|
Date
| Reply #2 on Mon 29 Sep 2003 08:58 AM (UTC) |
Message
| and no other language support is planned? |
she never loved me why should anyone | Top |
|
Posted by
| Shadowfyr
USA (1,790 posts) Bio
|
Date
| Reply #3 on Mon 29 Sep 2003 05:26 PM (UTC) |
Message
| You can always suggest one. However, Nick would then have to impliment the support code for it and you would have to wait for the next version. | Top |
|
Posted by
| finnish
Russia (18 posts) Bio
|
Date
| Reply #4 on Mon 29 Sep 2003 10:39 PM (UTC) |
Message
| just like i did ;) |
she never loved me why should anyone | Top |
|
Posted by
| Nick Gammon
Australia (23,133 posts) Bio
Forum Administrator |
Date
| Reply #5 on Tue 30 Sep 2003 07:04 AM (UTC) |
Message
| There is supposed to be a function "enumerate script engines" which would let me automatically display the scripting engines installed, however I couldn't get it to work, and I suspect it doesn't work. :P
|
- Nick Gammon
www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com | Top |
|
The dates and times for posts above are shown in Universal Co-ordinated Time (UTC).
To show them in your local time you can join the forum, and then set the 'time correction' field in your profile to the number of hours difference between your location and UTC time.
17,042 views.
It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed.
Refresh page
top