Rustom Mody <rustompm...@gmail.com> writes:the Artistic License, used by, for example, Perl. I do not think that
> I use and am interested in packaging the C interpreter
> 1. Its not under GPL but a 'creative licence'
>From the homepage, and the source, this 'creative license' appears to be
will be a problem.
> 2. It build does not use autotools but make with small edits. I guess IPlease don't do that. There's absolutely nothing wrong with not using
> could try putting it under autotools
autotools. If minor edits is all the upstream build system needs, doing
that is far less invasive than replacing the whole build system.
Especially as there is no upstream to send the autotoolsification to,
> 3. Its an old projectNow this is a bigger isse: with no upstream, possible bugs are all yours
to fix. Are you willing and capable of acting as if you were the
> I still believe that for many students C is still a first language andAnd this is another issue: why would a C interpreter help in any way? We
> therefore having an interpreter to study would greatly help them up their
> learning curve
already have battle-proven C compilers, which students will be exposed
to anyway, since if they work under unix, chances are, they'll use gcc
or clang anyway.
I do not think a C interpreter adds any value, I'm afraid. Granted, it's
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.