At 04:13 PM 2/12/2001 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>How much can we do in the compiler, and how much can we do in the
>interpreter? If we're having cached bytecode, it makes sense to do
>as much optimization as we can in the compiler. If not, we might
>as well brute force things to conserve compilat
At 09:34 AM 2/12/2001 -0800, Jan Dubois wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:13:10 +, Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >How much can we do in the compiler, and how much can we do in the
> >interpreter? If we're having cached bytecode, it makes sense to do
> >as much optimization as we can
At 12:25 PM 2/12/2001 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Monday 12 February 2001 12:40, Branden wrote:
> > Probably Perl 6 programs will be cached/distributed in optimized byte code
> > format.
>
>I'm not sure about the leading 'probably'. Perl 6 programs will most likely
>be like most other open
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:13:10 +, Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How much can we do in the compiler, and how much can we do in the
>interpreter? If we're having cached bytecode, it makes sense to do
>as much optimization as we can in the compiler. If not, we might
>as well brute forc
On Monday 12 February 2001 12:40, Branden wrote:
> Probably Perl 6 programs will be cached/distributed in optimized byte code
> format.
I'm not sure about the leading 'probably'. Perl 6 programs will most likely
be like most other open-source programs in other languages - either source,
which
Simon Cozens wrote:
> How much can we do in the compiler, and how much can we do in the
> interpreter? If we're having cached bytecode, it makes sense to do
> as much optimization as we can in the compiler.
I thought, by PDD 1
(http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg02116.html), it
was:
SOURCE CODE
