> > 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.
>
Yes, except it might provide a means of easily migrating from
perl 5.6+ to 6.0. I.e., rather than one whole-hog retrofit
things could proceed in smaller steps, with the first step
being a cleanup of the behind-the-scenes C/Perl interface.
> > 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.
>
Sorry -- then I misunderstood your meaning. At any rate, I
think the value of such an effort would be in developing a
revised extension mechanism.
Now granted, if Perl6 is written in CAML or something then the
effort would be wasted. But if it's done in C or C++ then there
will surely be lessons learned or useful techniques that can
be used in some "final" or "real" Perl6.
Thanks,
-Brent
