At 10:07 PM 9/13/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Ken Fox writes:
> > The dogfood theory? One of the design goals for Perl is to make text
> > munging easy. Parsing falls into that category and therefore we should
> > use it, i.e. eat our own dogfood.
>
>How about this. During design, we try to make the parser a module
>with an interface designed so that it could be done via Perl
>callbacks. At this stage we should be able to say "whoa! This is
>crazy, we can't do it", or "yes, we can leave the door open for
>this."
That's exactly what I'm looking towards. There's no way that perl 6 can
require itself--that just won't work. Once we've got it working, some of
the 'non-baseline' bits (like currying, just to pick a likely candidate
from thin air) might be a candidate to do in perl, at least to get it going.
Doing core work in perl also has startup issues--either we need to parse
perl code every time perl starts, write the optree stuff to be
position-independent, compile perl down to native code, or embed and
process bytecode every time we start.
Each of those four has its own problems.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
