Re: INP ("imcc's not parrot") (was: Re: imcc hack for perl6 regexes)

2002-08-22 Thread Leopold Toetsch
'John Porter' wrote: > Brent Dax wrote: > No; but statements like "imcc MUST provide access to ALL of parrot's > (still very dynamic) feature set" and discussions of imcc syntax > naturally lead to questions of imcc's role in the parrot project. > E.g. "will the perl6 compiler target imcc?" T

Re: INP ("imcc's not parrot") (was: Re: imcc hack for perl6 regexes)

2002-08-21 Thread 'John Porter'
Brent Dax wrote: > John Porter: > # languages. Seems to me that to say that every feature of parrot > # must be exposed in imcc is to imply that all upper-level > # languages must go through imcc -- and that's something I > > Let me see if I can follow your logic: IMCC gives access to all Pa

RE: INP ("imcc's not parrot") (was: Re: imcc hack for perl6 regexes)

2002-08-21 Thread Brent Dax
John Porter: # languages. Seems to me that to say that every feature of parrot # must be exposed in imcc is to imply that all upper-level # languages must go through imcc -- and that's something I Let me see if I can follow your logic: IMCC gives access to all Parrot features, therefore IMCC