"David L. Nicol" wrote:
>
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > I do want to have a set of C/XS/whatever sources as part of the test suite
> > as well--right now perl's test suite only tests the language, and I think
> > we should also test the HLL interface we present, as it's just as
> > important in some ways.
>
> I want to see Perl become a full-blown C/C++ JIT. Since Perl is for
> a large part a compatible subset of C I don't see this as unrealistic.
>
> Delaying any post-token parsing of barewords until after looking at
> what local declarations are in effect is part of it, dealing with the
> one or two differences in operator precedence that exist is another
>
> (Old precedence semantics unless new-ism like a declared typed bareword
> exists in the current or a surrounding block would be the easiest way to do
> it I think)
>
> Typed barewords as an available good syntax would please those who find
> perl overpunctuated.
>
> XS would become a more proper part of the language, the line would blur
> as we could mix Perl and C freely with very little performance loss due
> to late binding except in things that are not known at "compile time"
> things which by definition cannot be clarified without run-time inputs.
>
> --
> David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A C JIT is an interesting idea.
I think that a project works best when it has a set of goals (I haven't
seen one yet really for Perl 6). Unless this is one of the goals, I can
easily see how this could become a serious distraction to what I
perceive as the likely goals of Perl6.
--
David Corbin
Mach Turtle Technologies, Inc.
http://www.machturtle.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
