Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:19 AM 11/17/00 -0800, Ken Fox wrote:
However, I don't want to see early (premature) adoption of fundamental
pieces like the VM or parser. It makes sense to me to explore many
possible
designs and pick and choose between them. Also, if we can
Nat and I argued parts of this (I think this is included) at some length.
Actually, I think I drove him crazy getting specifics out of this.
Adam Turoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:59:40PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
6) Only a WG chair, pumpking, or one of the
This was the subject of a list and an RFC. I'd hope not to see what we
worked hard to come up with not go to waste, guys and gals. We came up
with a "least of all evils" solution, I think, and I feel very strongly
that not protecting Perl from outright theft, especially using very iffy
licenses
into perl than to have each creole spit out syntax
trees. It's the difference between a bunch of little anthill add-ons
versus a bunch of big everest add-ons, whether compiled in or linked,
whether perl or api.
David Grove
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Keeping in mind the input is source, and
the output is a syntax tree)
Will you be my hero?
Or
Your clarity is sincerely appreciated.
Ok, _from_ the books on the reading list, I'm seeing no precedent for a
parser/lexer/tokenizer that uses multiple
Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 12:43:15PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 01:20:07AM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
I'm assuming we're all sort of thinking that input is certainly
[good stuff]
Thanks, but you were supposed to
