On Aug 5, 2005, at 20:17, Sam Ruby wrote:
My experiences with Parrot was that everything I did was met with either direct animosity or by being ignored. If that changed, I could see myself becoming active again.
I would very much appreciate your contributions the more that parrot was and is evolving in a direction that should simplify e.g. implementing Python. A lot of parrot cruft that caused vivid discusssions (which was never animosity) is gone.
There are still issues e.g. with namespaces. I've put out numberless mails on p6i where I invited HLL folks to discuss it and make some proposals. Guess how many answers these mails got. And there is:
http://svn.perl.org/parrot/trunk/docs/req/model_users.pod
In the past few weeks, I have received two pieces of feedback from the Parrot community. One was attacking me for having adopted the suggestion by Leo that the object of the method should be passed on the first argument of method call.
You know my position very well with that point. I've always said that Dan's 'we pass the object out-of-band' is not the way our target languages are working. And I said that your implementation is a hack to work around these deficiency of parrot. Passing the invocant twice to e.g. '__abs__' isn't a solution either the more that the user visible signature of that function changes.
Anyway the new calling conventions will for sure pass the object as the first argument and the calling conventions will very likely support the full Pythons specs. *args is already done, as well as all issues regarding I/S/N/P mismatch. Parrot just converts these argumens forth and back as needed so that it's fully transparent for a HLL that just has PMCs.
The second was to attack me for saying something nice about morphing.
Sorry if I missed the niceness factor of morph in your slides (I just saw that html page, you know). Python's scalars (and some other types don't morph). Any implementation that forces morph for doing e.g. 'a=2+3' can only be considered being b0rken by all pythonistas in your talk. I'm really missing 'nice' in such a slide the more that it's based on ...
I said in slide 3 that this presentation was based mostly on memory.
... old and unneeded assumptions how parrot works. Again you very well know my position regarding this point. I always said there shoud be a means to create a new destination PMC. And this is implemented and working since months.
In slide 4, I said that Parrot is evolving. I said in slide 31 that my memory was based on the work I did in December of 2004.
Ok. Sorry I've missed that.
- Sam Ruby
leo
