Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 10:03, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I wrote:
>> > [ A huge wodge of possible perl 6 code ]
>>
>> I'm getting that Warnock's Dilemma feeling here... Did I stun you
>> all into silence?
>
> On my clock, your original message arrived at 04:23, and your
> followup at 10:03. On the west coast of the US, that would be 01:23
> to 07:03. That's probably the time you're least likely to get
> responses.
Ah yes. Timezones. But I confess I was hoping for a reaction from any
European contingent.
> Personally, I'm a little stunned. I wish I could load it into a
> debuggger ;-)
Me too. I'm *sure* it's full of mistakes 'cos wetware sucks for this
sort of thing. But it was fun to write.
> Your idea at the end of regugitating the code back out as Parrot or Perl
> is just slightly stunning on its own.
I thought that was the easy bit. The compiler just (for appropriate
values of 'just' of course) walks the syntax tree and uses an
appropriate code generator to output appropriate source, which is what
compilers have been doing since the year dot surely.
> Still digesting....
<grin> Patches welcome.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
