On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 10:39:55AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
To solve this versioning issue, is there a way Perl 6 compiler can just
figure out what's being fed?
Why?
i) To make things easier for the programmer. (That's kinda the point of
Perl.)
ii) Because Larry said so, *and* declared
At 02:58 PM 4/15/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 10:39:55AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
To solve this versioning issue, is there a way Perl 6 compiler can just
figure out what's being fed?
Why?
i) To make things easier for the programmer. (That's kinda the point of
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:11:41PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I hereby declare that a package declaration at the front of a file
unambiguously indicates you are parsing Perl 5 code.
^^^
Grand. To play devil's advocate here for a moment, that
At 05:20 PM 4/16/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:11:41PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I hereby declare that a package declaration at the front of a file
unambiguously indicates you are parsing Perl 5 code.
^^^
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:25:15PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
*cough*
s/parse/interpret/;
Seems a bit of a shame to parse it and then not do anything with it,
especially if we're trying to push Perl 6 as a common language runtime
for running all sorts of bytecode-compiled languages. :)
--
At 12:11 PM 4/16/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
There are a number of reasons to *not* claim to parse perl 5 code.
*) We won't load any perl 5 XS code
*) We won't be getting the corner cases, and perl5 has a *lot*.
*) It complicates the interpreter if we need to add code to support things
that
The
timescales of corporations like Sun are not the same as those commonly
encountered in the open software arena.
Ditto for HP.
Jeff
At 09:47 AM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
At 12:11 PM 4/16/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
There are a number of reasons to *not* claim to parse perl 5 code.
*) We won't load any perl 5 XS code
*) We won't be getting the corner cases, and perl5 has a *lot*.
*) It complicates the interpreter
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 09:58:05AM -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
Name tricks are ugly, but useful. Perhaps the best solution would
be to call the new interpreter perl6. If it finds itself being
called 'perl' or 'perl5' then it should assume perl 5 code
I just worry about users not being aware
At 02:33 PM 4/16/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 09:47 AM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
As a very low-tech solution, why not bundle perl 5 *with* perl 6 so that
once perl 6 detects that it's been fed perl 5 code, it can send it to the
perl 5 compiler/interpreter.
Besides the size and
At 12:19 PM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
Or were you espousing the notion that perl 6 programs should be able to
contain sections of perl 5 code? That gives me strange palpitations.
This is what I've been arguing against. Unless I misunderstand (and it
wouldn't be the first time... :)
Dan Sugalski wrote
At 12:19 PM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
Or were you espousing the notion that perl 6 programs should
be able to contain sections of perl 5 code? That gives me
strange palpitations.
This is what I've been arguing against. Unless I misunderstand
(and it
I don't get it.
The first and foremost duty of Perl 6 is to parse and execute Perl 6.
If it doesn't, it's not Perl 6. I will call this the Prime Directive.
I think as the first approximation the implementation of Perl 6 should
get that "simple" task right. If it doesn't, all our talk and work
At 02:49 PM 4/16/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Thinking about the 5-6 migration and coexistence is good and useful,
but since that doesn't advance the Prime Directive, thinking about it
*too* much now or fighting over the niggly details is somewhat wasted
effort.
We have been stuck in a
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS We have been stuck in a sort of Gilbert and Sullivan debate,
DS haven't we? Silly, definitely silly.
o/' perl6 is the very model of a modern major interpreter o/'
:-)
uri
--
Uri Guttman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:19:38PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
Er, I don't get it. I'm proposing that if perl 6 determines it's been
given perl 5 code, it does "exec perl5 $0". So thereafter it's as though
perl 6 never existed as far as that code is concerned; whatever it wants to
do
16 matches
Mail list logo
