John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Yes. did you read mine?
Yes, I read your email.
Sounds like you are thinking of Parrot vs pure
perl, and missed my point about being utterly different implementations,
not choices within one.
Chances are, the most popular implementations of Perl 6 will allow C
On Jun 2, 2009, at 5:11 PM, Daniel Carrera wrote:
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
So CPAN6 is basically only going to be for Parrot?
What are you talking about? Did you even read my email? I said that
a module might be implemented in multiple languages (see Digest::SHA
VS Digest::SHA::PurePerl)
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 02:56:46AM +0200, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Jon Lang wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Daniel Carrera
daniel.carr...@theingots.org wrote:
I think we might need to come up with some sort of standard naming
convention to distinguish dependencies. Something that the
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 10:58:21AM +0200, Daniel Carrera wrote:
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
The front-end should figure out which binary is proper for your
platform.
I don't like that idea in the slightest. (1) It is not Perl's job to
know if you have a C compiler, C libraries and tool chain.
Hi Patrick,
To reduce list traffic, I'm replying to both of your emails together.
Just because these are the only adverbs mentioned doesn't necessarily
mean they're the only ones that will be allowed.
Ok. My interpretation was that adding adverbs would require updating the
spec. More
Currently in CPAN you have modules like:
Digest::MD5
Digest::SHA
Digest::MD5::Perl
Digest::SHA::PurePerl
The difference is that the first two are implemented in C and the later
two in Perl.
This is comparible to adding a target to each of the modules, a
suggestion when you started this
Mark Overmeer wrote:
Currently in CPAN you have modules like:
Digest::MD5
Digest::SHA
Digest::MD5::Perl
Digest::SHA::PurePerl
The difference is that the first two are implemented in C and the later
two in Perl.
This is comparible to adding a target to each of the modules, a
suggestion when
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Mark Overmeer wrote:
Currently in CPAN you have modules like:
Digest::MD5
Digest::SHA
Digest::MD5::Perl
Digest::SHA::PurePerl
The difference is that the first two are implemented in C and the
later two in Perl.
This is comparible to adding a target to each of the
Daniel Carrera daniel.carrera-at-theingots.org |Perl 6| wrote:
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
The front-end should figure out which binary is proper for your
platform.
I don't like that idea in the slightest. (1) It is not Perl's job to
know if you have a C compiler, C libraries and tool chain. (2)
Sounds like you are on the right track. Separation of concerns,
standardization of some of these solutions without regard to platform or
Perl implementation, and learning from prior art.
Richard Hainsworth richard-at-rusrating.ru |Perl 6| wrote:
Daniel Carrera wrote:
Mark Overmeer wrote:
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
So CPAN6 is basically only going to be for Parrot?
What are you talking about? Did you even read my email? I said that a
module might be implemented in multiple languages (see Digest::SHA VS
Digest::SHA::PurePerl) and someone might have both versions installed.
Chris Fields wrote:
Speaking as an almost complete outsider (I'm a bioperl core dev writing
up a perl6 port), I find the tone of several of these more recent posts
(re: CPAN6 and module conventions) counterproductive. TimToady recently
posted about snippiness and 'tensegrity', so I'm not the
Daniel Carrera daniel.carrera-at-theingots.org |Perl 6| wrote:
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
So CPAN6 is basically only going to be for Parrot?
What are you talking about? Did you even read my email? I said that a
module might be implemented in multiple languages (see Digest::SHA VS
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Daniel Carrera
daniel.carr...@theingots.org wrote:
I think we might need to come up with some sort of standard naming
convention to distinguish dependencies. Something that the *user* can
recognize quickly when he browses CPAN.
Why do we need the dependencies to
Jon Lang wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Daniel Carrera
daniel.carr...@theingots.org wrote:
I think we might need to come up with some sort of standard naming
convention to distinguish dependencies. Something that the *user* can
recognize quickly when he browses CPAN.
Why do we need
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Jon Lang datawea...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Daniel Carrera
daniel.carr...@theingots.org wrote:
I think we might need to come up with some sort of standard naming
convention to distinguish dependencies. Something that the *user* can
Daniel Carrera daniel.carrera-at-theingots.org |Perl 6| wrote:
Naming issues are likely to become worse in Perl 6 when we also have
modules that use Parrot. You might have three implementations of
Digest::SHA, one in Perl 6, one that uses Parrot, and one that uses
C. Worse, you might even
17 matches
Mail list logo
