On 10/12/05, Rob Kinyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Plus, I can't imagine that a reverser for Parrot code is going to be that > hard to > write.
Disassembling register machine code is significantly more difficult than disassembling stack machine code. That said, if the level of introspective capabilities is high, then disassembling is probably not hard. As far as I know, keeping introspective capabilities high is a major Perl goal :-) > Alternately, maybe you have a pragma that says "Finalize all classes > unless I specify that it should remain open." That's the plan, where the pragma is only available before any modules are loaded, IIRC (this keeps modules from closing themselves off). I think this is an opportune time for me to express that I think the ability to close-source a module is important. I love open source, and I couldn't imagine writing anything by myself that I wouldn't share. But in order for Perl to be taken seriously as a commercial client-side language, it must be possible to close the source. I started writing a game with a few friends last year, and as we were picking our implementation strategy, using Perl as the primary "sequencing engine" for non-time-critical tasks was immediately discounted when I commented that anybody can look at your perl source if they want to. Of course, there is no argument there for allowing closed-source *modules*, just complete applications. But I'm sure you could fish one out involving dynamic loading, or modding, or whatever you want to call it. Luke
