Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's more than just the parser. You've got the bytecode compiler and
> possibly the optimizer as well, and they're probably going to be all, or
> mostly, C. On the other hand they might not have any internal hooks for
> perl code to wedge into, in which case they're just black boxes and not of
> much concern.
This is exactly why I have been pushing for the internals APIs to be very
clearly defined. I expect to have to replace various parts of it with Java
code, so that it will run natively on the JVM. Anything that must be
present at run-time for Perl code will likely need to be reimplemented in
Java to make a full-fledged JVM port.
> That probably didn't talk you down, did it? :-/
No, but I figured this would be hard, anyway. As long as it's an order of
magnitude easier than it is to use B:: to port Perl to the JVM, I think I'll
be satisfied.
(And, I should not that simply writing clear, well-defined APIs for all
internal data structures should be enough to reach that goal.)
--
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
PGP signature
