On Friday 23 June 2006 12:19, Audrey Tang wrote:
> Multiple implementations that are compatible to the spec, like the
> R5RS Scheme, are really a very good thing.
Only insofar as the spec is complete enough that an implementation that adds
nothing beyond that is useful and that there exists so
> "AT" == Audrey Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AT> Indeed. So instead of having the implementions define the language,
AT> this time around the specs, and tests, and API documentations, need
AT> to be adhered closely by implementors, which is why we're all talking
AT> together in #
在 2006/6/23 上午 9:50 時，chromatic 寫到：
On Friday 23 June 2006 00:04, Swaroop C H wrote:
So, as of now, you envision svn:/pugs/misc/pX/Common/Pugs-Compiler-
Perl6 to
be the "main" engine for Perl 6 ?
I believe Audrey's point was that it is the most complete
implementation right
now.
No, t
On Friday 23 June 2006 00:04, Swaroop C H wrote:
> So, as of now, you envision svn:/pugs/misc/pX/Common/Pugs-Compiler-Perl6 to
> be the "main" engine for Perl 6 ?
I believe Audrey's point was that it is the most complete implementation right
now.
> If this is the case, is the purpose of the oth
