Re: require < 6.x
NeonEdge wrote on 2/21/01 4.07: ... >sense: could p6 allow (for the >first few versions anyway) a >"require <6;" directive? My ... This sounds to me like a good idea, especially if we implement some of the other radical changes, such as implicit 'use strict' or major changes to builtins. Personally I'd have it be 'use perl5' (it's the difference between making a new pragma and defining a third meaning for require [or redefining its current meaning]) but that's a minor detail. Unfortunately, it may be too late. Oh well... --Brent Dax Excuse typos, it's hahd to write on a Palm...
Some things I wonder if you're aware of.
I've begun to study language implementation. I've a long way to go and certainly will not be much help with the Perl6 effort... I wonder if you know about: The Stalin Scheme compiler? The realtime generational GC in rScheme? The very fast virtual machines of librep (aka Sawfish) and Guile scheme? I wonder if one of those VM's could be used (as is or with collaborative modifications) as a target for Perl6? -- mailto: (Karl M. Hegbloom) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.microsharp.com phone://USA/WA/360-260-2066
Re: Some things I wonder if you're aware of.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 03:53:56PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I wonder if one of those VM's could be used (as is or with > collaborative modifications) as a target for Perl6? We've got plenty of targets. What we need now is ammunition. -- In related wibbling, I can see an opening for the four lusers of the Apocalypse... "I didn't change anything", "My e-mail doesn't work", "I can't print" and "Is the network broken?". - Paul Mc Auley
