On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 04:08:24PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> my translation:
>
> some features in other languages require core level support if perl6
> will be able to emulate or interact with them.
Huh??
> s> There's two things in combination going on here. 1) The feature is
> s> obscure. 2) The feature is easy and fairly efficient to implement
> s> outside of Perl 6. That's the rough criterion I'm using for
> s> determining if something should or should not be in the core.
>
> i disagree. that is too arbitrary. there are advantages and
> disadvantages to having things in the core vs. a module. the decision
> should be made on a feature by feature basis. look at damian's switch
> stuff. it works as a (source filtered) module now but it would obviously
> be better as a builtin.
Yes, Switch.pm is a perfect example. It should go into the core. Its
neither #1 (obscure) nor #2 (easy and efficient to implement as a
module). Anything that requires source filters ain't easy (or safe).
Please, I don't want to start arguing about little nitty details and
exceptions. I'm also not holding up these two simple rules and say
"THIS SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW!" These are just the heuristics
I'm using. I'm just trying to ease the amount of core work we'll have
to do else Perl 6 will never get done.
This particular feature we can do later if we need it.
--
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
