On Mon, 4 May 2009, Allison Randal wrote:
> Will Coleda wrote:
> >
> > Then we can have "inst_foo" which is always the installed version, and
> > 'foo', which depends on the current location.
>
> Is the intention to manipulate the two versions of the config file in such a
> way that someone can access the various 'foo' config variables to (for
> example) compile a language from either a build directory or an installed
> Parrot with no changes to the Makefile template for the language? It should be
> possible, I just want to check up front that we're all working on the same
> goal.
I don't know. My goal was merely to ask the question and start the
conversation. I noticed that parrot was heading in the direction of
having at least some separate variables, with inconsistent and
undocumented naming "conventions," and without any clear vision of how it
was supposed to look to the language developer.
I think it should be easy for a language to build against an installed
parrot. I also don't think it's unreasonable for a language to have to
jump through a few additional hoops to build against a not-installed
parrot. (Given the pace of development, this is likely to be necessary
for some time, so it makes sense to give due consideration to that case.)
I do think it's unreasonable for a language to have to jump over, through,
or around a random mish-mash of inconsistent obstacles no matter what it
tries to do. That's where I sensed things were heading.
--
Andy Dougherty [email protected]
_______________________________________________
http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
