On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 05:03:34PM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote: > Where we differ, I think, is that you expressed a desire for things like > the SystemV IPC functions to be 'known' by perl in advance. I'm saying > that we shouldn't have many, if any, pre-defined hooks to extensions. > > Let the 'use' of an 'interface definition', or something like it, bring > in what you need. Right. We don't have to be source compatable, we will be translating. So the translator would know what current keywords have been demoted to modules/subs For example when the translator sees localtime, it could know to do a C<use POSIX qw(localtime)> Graham.
- Stuff in core (was Re: date interface, on language (was ... Simon Cozens
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: date interface, on langu... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: date interface, on l... Simon Cozens
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: date interface, ... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: date interface, on l... Tim Bunce
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: date interface, ... Tim Bunce
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: date interfa... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: date in... Tim Bunce
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: dat... Graham Barr
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: date in... Ken Fox
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re: dat... Nathan Torkington
- Re: Stuff in core (was Re:... Tim Bunce
- Re: C# (.NET) has no inter... Joshua N Pritikin
- Re: C# (.NET) has no inter... Ken Fox
- Re: C# (.NET) has no inter... Kevin Scott
- Re: C# (.NET) has no inter... Dan Sugalski
- Re: C# (.NET) has no inter... John Tobey
- Re: C# (.NET) has no inter... Ken Fox
- Re: C# (.NET) has no inter... Joshua N Pritikin