Re: So, we need a code name...

[Branden]

At 11:27 AM 24/04/2001 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>Or, rather, I think we should have one. Naming the interpreter separate 
>from the language may help folks keep the various bits separate in their 
>minds. (It'll certainly help me be clearer when I talk about it)

Actually, I think the language (the syntax) is becoming so much different 
than Perl 5, that I think we would need another name for the language as 
well... :-(



>Personally, I'm up for calling the interpreter "Parrot" unless someone has 
>an objection...

Agreed.

- Branden