Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Jun 18, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Mark Glines (via RT) wrote:
|
| > Here's a patch to consolidate that, and standardize on STRING (based
| > on the fact that it's used *much* more often than String is).
|
| And also isn't String a standard C++ class?
No. T
Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Nick~
|
| On 10/26/05, Nick Glencross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Guy,
| >
| > As a follow-up to a discussion a few days ago about binding parrot to
| > C++ functions, is making it possible to compile parrot with a C++
| > compiler a 'Bad Thing'?
|
|
Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| All~
|
| If I recall correctly, GCC supports Haskell, which is an ideal
| language for Parrot.
That might probably be the case, but we don't have it in the FSF
release and I don't recall we have any mention of Haskell in the
section of various front-end
