On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 16:46:40 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> There's a bit at the end of the current S29:
>  =item A/S??: OS Interaction
> I've taken on a few of these, and in doing so found that I was making
> some assumptions. I'd like to share those and see if they make sense:
>       * POSIX will be a low-level module that slavishly reproduces the
>         POSIX interfaces as closely as possible (perhaps moreso than
>         Perl 5)
>       * OS, or whatever we call the core OS interaction module, will
>         have an interface which is entirely driven by Perl 6 and may not
>         resemble POSIX much at all.
>       * OS will use POSIX to implement its functionality, so only POSIX
>         need know how to get at the lowest level.
> Will that be reasonable? Am I stomping on anything?

I think OS is kind of bad.

Perl 6 is designed to be embeddable, retargetable, etc.

Sometimes the environment well be JS like, that is you have
(possibly) readonly environment calls (gettimeofday, etc), but not
others (IO)...

Ideally I would like to have something more partitioned, and with a
less binding name than OS.

That said, there's no reason why there shouldn't be a convenience
wrapper around a more partitioned set of APIs, that provides a more
toolchain like approach, and keeps the docs together.

  Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://nothingmuch.woobling.org  0xEBD27418

Attachment: pgpa4KWeuv2pQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to