On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 06:04:56PM -0400, Randy W. Sims wrote:
> On 4/6/2004 11:06 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >At 6:12 AM -0400 4/4/04, Randy W. Sims wrote:
> >[Scheme 1: hierarchy munging]
> >
> >[Scheme 2: loadable-library style plugins]
> >
> >>Is there anything in the above that stands out as po
At 6:04 PM -0400 4/6/04, Randy W. Sims wrote:
On 4/6/2004 11:06 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 6:12 AM -0400 4/4/04, Randy W. Sims wrote:
[Scheme 1: hierarchy munging]
[Scheme 2: loadable-library style plugins]
Is there anything in the above that stands out as potentially
being problematic?
Well, t
On 4/6/2004 11:06 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 6:12 AM -0400 4/4/04, Randy W. Sims wrote:
[Scheme 1: hierarchy munging]
[Scheme 2: loadable-library style plugins]
Is there anything in the above that stands out as potentially being
problematic?
Well, there are a lot of languages that really dislik
At 6:12 AM -0400 4/4/04, Randy W. Sims wrote:
[Scheme 1: hierarchy munging]
[Scheme 2: loadable-library style plugins]
Is there anything in the above that stands out as potentially being
problematic?
Well, there are a lot of languages that really dislike having their
inheritance hierarchy change
to script Module::Build installs and write plugins in any of
the languages supported by Parrot. In order to accomplish this we need
to make sure that the plugin architecture chosen is compatible with any
restrictions or limitations with regards to language interoperability.
For example, right now
