Re: Updated maint-guide contents, question on style -- ELF/compiled language
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 03:47:57PM +0100, Justin B Rye wrote:
> Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Justin B Rye wrote:
>
> References to ELF are a bit more technical than there's any need for.
> I assure you there really are "compiled" and "interpreted" languages,
> and those are the terms normally used to refer to them - see:
> "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiled_language";
> "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreted_language";
> A "compiler language" would be a language used for or by a compiler
> (not necessarily the same as the language it's compiling), and
> likewise for an "interpreter language".
I correct myself and agree on your poit about "compiled language".
Although "written" is true, I wanted to stress "compiled" part to get
executables. Also, this compiled code can not be machine independent
java-byte code etc. Thus I wanted ELF here.
So these 2 texts are what I wanted to be a matching set.
* executables written in an interpreted language such as POSIX shell
* ELF binary executables compiled from languages such as C and C++
If you say adding compiled before "languages" is better, I will do so.
I removed ulink for ELF for all around here and left one in the later
section on dh_shlibdeps to make PDF look nicer.
(FYI: Even some text data generation can be arch-dep process if it is
not written carefully for Unicode range characters such as BOM-less
UCS-2.)
Osamu
Reply to: