On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 11:25:52AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 12:16:33AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > I'd actually like to see some work on the shared memory and IPC stuff on
> > the language list--it'd be nice to have them in as mostly-primitives,
> > though in a more platform-neutral way.
>
> "mostly-primitives" sounds like a fudge. Like the hacks used to get 'lock'
> into the perl5. perl6 shouldn't need 'mostly-primitives'.
>
> > From a language perspective, I have a scheme to allow us to yank all the
> > cruft (sockets, shm, messages, localtime...) out into separate libraries,
> > yet pull them in on demand without needing a use.
>
> Why worry about a use?
>
> Larry is thinking long and hard about 'interface definition' issues.
> Specificaly in relation to enabling multiple versions of a module to
> co-exist and, importantly, enabling multiple alternate implementations
> of the same interface.
>
> Let's wait and see where that goes first.
Thinking about that some more, I can imagine that...
a) The 'use' of an 'interface definition' could optionally just define
stubs that will trigger the 'use' of a module to implement it when
first called.
b) An 'interface definition' could cover multiple modules
(or, more strictly, multiple interface definitions for those modules).
Thus a single 'use' of an 'interface definition' thingy could save
many lines of individual 'use' statements.
Tim.
