At 05:49 PM 2/8/2001 +0000, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:31:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Not unless you strip the bytecode. I want to optionally package the source
> > in the bytecode, since otherwise you can't do some optimizations after the
> > fact on the generated bytecode stream.
>
>Clever dog!
Altogether too much so, I expect. :) Reading the optimizing compiler books
makes my head hurt, but there's a lot of interesting stuff in them.
> > > 2) You have to make provisions to distribute your documentation
> > > seperately.
> >
> > Presumably you'd package it up in the tar or zip archive containing the
> > fully-compiled program.
>
>Seperated documentation is no documentation.
At some point things are going to get split out, unless you wedge the docs
into the actual program itself. (You were, after all, talking about config
files and XS modules, and those can't usefully stay inside the archive)
> > > 5) Do YOU have a stable bytecode compiler?? I don't.
> >
> > For perl 6? No. Not yet.
>
>Is perlcc considered really stable and usable in 5.6? Hmm, my little
>test would say no. :(
I shan't be going there for lack of time. It'd be nice if someone had the
time to make it work.
> > I assumed that since you were discussing this on a perl 6 mailing list,
> you
> > were talking about doing this with perl 6.
>
>What! Me stay on topic? HA!
Yeah, I know--what *was* I thinking?
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
