* The definition of "low-magic" (v. - presumably - "high-magic") seems to be unclear, even with the rules specified in the "Low-Magic Perl Commandments". It's also unclear if that's a hard restriction on what Perl code RPerl is able to understand or if it's a strong recommendation for performance/safety/security/cleanliness/sanity/etc. Are there any code samples floating around re: what a sample RPerl-friendly Perl program would look like?
* The FAQ states that RPerl is released under the same terms as Perl 5.22.0, which is subject to the GPL and the Artistic License. However, the FAQ states that selling binaries without accompanying source code is forbidden, yet doing so seems to be allowed by Section 4 of the Artistic License (particularly clauses 'a' and 'c'). Is this intentional? Did the RPerl folks mean for RPerl to be GPL-only? Am I just misinterpreting the text of the Artistic License?
* The data must be all typed,
* there needs to exist a C++ mapping for this type,
* and there need to exist a C++ mapping for these typed ops.
Since rperl does this transparently it's a bit hard to tell which parts get optimized and which not. I hope we can create better tools or docs to see it.
re LICENSE: This additional selling clause is a violation of the ARTISTIC license, yes. But you can just fork rperl, delete this selling clause, and you should be fine, since rperl itself is under the dual perl license.
Larry Wall said at a Cluj.pm meeting earlier this year: "most of the Perl modules are released under 'the same license as Perl', but Perl itself is not bound under any kind of license".
So, I don't think that RPerl is more restricted if it states 'released under same license as Perl'
Does he mean Perl (the language) or perl (the interpreter and - I'd imagine - standard library) in that remark? I know he tends to maintain distinct definitions of the two (e.g. when it's said (paraphrasing) that "Only perl can understand Perl").
* The definition of "low-magic" (v. - presumably - "high-magic") seems to be unclear, even with the rules specified in the "Low-Magic Perl Commandments". It's also unclear if that's a hard restriction on what Perl code RPerl is able to understand or if it's a strong recommendation for performance/safety/security/cleanliness/sanity/etc. Are there any code samples floating around re: what a sample RPerl-friendly Perl program would look like?
* The FAQ states that RPerl is released under the same terms as Perl 5.22.0, which is subject to the GPL and the Artistic License. However, the FAQ states that selling binaries without accompanying source code is forbidden, yet doing so seems to be allowed by Section 4 of the Artistic License (particularly clauses 'a' and 'c'). Is this intentional? Did the RPerl folks mean for RPerl to be GPL-only? Am I just misinterpreting the text of the Artistic License?