Thanks for the work, it is really appreciated: I could easily customize my error pages with that (much better than recompiling C code!)
I found a couple of glitches, though. I use ePerl in CGI mode. The script name is not detected correctly, there are issues with multiple arguments in shebang (not sure where the bug comes from, upstream from ePerl for sure), and also errors are reported with HTTP code 200 instead of 500. Additionally, I added an option for a customized error script.
I summarize all that (with diffs) on my blog: https://xavier.robin.name/blog/2010/06/19/debugging-eperl Feel free to take it to improve ePerl!
I just wanted to say thanks for writing this script - it has made me a very happy programmer.
Until I came across this, I had been using m4 and bash for my templating and it was driving me nuts.
Perl saves the day yet again :)
Wow, actually I'm pretty impressed with the fact that the perl written version of ePerl is only 25% slower.
But once again, feel free to use the original version of ePerl if speed is important to you. (And try to read the home page before posting here next time...)
From the home page (http://marginalhacks.com/Hacks/ePerl/):
Why a Rewrite?
ePerl program (http://www.engelschall.com/sw/eperl/)
had the perl interpreter built in. This required a huge
download, installation and executable. This also meant
that ePerl might use a different version of perl than you
had locally installed.
I wanted to make some changes to ePerl, and since ePerl mostly did
text munging, I realized it should be written in Perl itself.
It's significantly slower, but it's much easier to deal with and modify/play
with, so I wouldn't recommend it over the original ePerl unless you have
a use for such a thing.
not only am I not fully convinced that this re-write of the original eperl by Engelschall is really necessary, I would also like to draw your attention to the re-write´s being much slower (not surprisingly). - I use eperl heavily in some Fortran code construction, and there I found that in a typical situation I get the following times (user; minutes:seconds) on average:
original eperl (C): 2:52
rewrite, version 1.16min: 3:35
rewrite, version 1.19: 3:42
So, unless you need the extra features of the re-write, I think one might be better off using the C version.
An open, cross-platform journaling program.
A scientific plotting package.