Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brent Fulgham wrote:
>
> > > I think there is an undiscussed assumption about the implementation
> > > language in there somewhere...
> >
> > I think you may have missed the context of the message. John was talking
> > about creating his Alpha using various existing projects that had already
> > been done in C++.
>
> Why is he bothering? A year to produce a prototype doesn't seem like a
> useful way to expend effort on something that isn't actually perl6.
It is actually perl6 if/when it's finished.
> > > We've been down that path already - Topaz. With all due respect this is
> > > supposed to be a community rewrite. Your proposal doesn't seem to be
> > > along those lines.
> >
> > With all due respect, I think you may be taking this out of context. I
> > don't believe John's intent was to hijack the process. He was outling
> > a theoretical schedule that could be used to provide a working
> > Perl5 -> Perl6 migration path.
>
> I'm not saying it was. However I don't see how the proposal would aid
> the migration - after all what he is writing will be neither perl5 nor
> perl6.
I am not "writing". I am "transforming".
--
John Tobey, late nite hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
\\\ ///
]]] With enough bugs, all eyes are shallow. [[[
/// \\\
