On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Stephen Thorne wrote: > > It seems to me that if we want to maximize the > > number of languages using it, the generic > > compiler shouldn't depend on anything but > > C and parrot... But until we get it working, > > I'd like to stick to a dynamic language like > > python/perl/lua/scheme. And, well, my code's > > already in python... :) [though I'd actually > > love to try out some lua 5] > I like the concept, but I have a comment about the > implementation. For PHP, and even for Python, it is necessery to do > code generation on the fly, for things like eval() and dynamic > imports (php's ""include"" is always a dynamic import).
definitely. > Thus the code generator is best suited to be in a language that can > be run from within the parrot machine, otherwise statements like > 'eval()' would not be possible without binding parrot to a > non-portable C library. > > I would instead suggest that we pick a suitable 'dynamic' language > to write the code generator in, so it can be self-hosting. Sure. That's why I said stick to C or parrot. I'm not sure I understand why C wouldn't be portable... (I don't know c at all but I thought that was the point)?? I'd much rather use parrot. Where "parrot" means something else compiled down to parrot, and "something else" means python. :) Sincerely, Michal J Wallace Sabren Enterprises, Inc. ------------------------------------- contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] hosting: http://www.cornerhost.com/ my site: http://www.withoutane.com/ --------------------------------------
