At 02:42 PM 12/18/2001 -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
>Burp, more spam from me...
Mmmmm, spam! With mustard and cheddar, on a toasted bagel! :)
>As I see it there are several immediate questions to be answered for Parrot
>IO.
>Feel free to answer with Y/N or Maybe.
>
>1) Nick Ing-Simmons' Perl IO for Perl5
> a) Could it easily support the features that Dan wants in Parrot IO
>such
> as async stuff?
I'm not sure, I've not looked too closely at it. (I know, Bad Dan!)
> b) Does it represent as an abstraction what we want as an API for
>Parrot?
Good question.
> c) Is there a copyright issue?
Nope, not any more. I need to update the license files for the repository,
but we're GPL/AL, same as perl 5.
> d) If (a&b&c) has anyone approached Nick about porting?
He was originally going to dive into it when he got side-tracked with a new
employer. (Along with the obligatory three month fight with their legal
department over IP issues)
>2) What architecture about Perl IO does not fit what Dan wants for Parrot
> (if there are any).
Good question. If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say the problem is that it's
meant to support the IO model perl 5 has, warts and all. (It's been moving
away from stdio, but that's where it started)
>3) Perl IO has conditional compilation for using stdio. Dan has said no
>STDIO
> but are we going to abandon conditional support for Parrot?
Yes, we are.
>4) For platforms out there with broken or no async IO support, do we
>emulate
> async (background thread or something) or just say, "tough!?"
Emulate. And then I get to send out lots of cranky "Not async safe!"
messages when things break places with real async IO systems. :)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
