At 11:37 PM 8/22/2001 +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
>Larry's already said (from memory) that the distinction between ops and
>subs should be minimized or eliminated.
>
>That, together with the desire to keep parrot fairly language netural,
>leads naturally to having 'heavy' ops actually be be subs.
Yup
Larry's already said (from memory) that the distinction between ops and
subs should be minimized or eliminated.
That, together with the desire to keep parrot fairly language netural,
leads naturally to having 'heavy' ops actually be be subs.
Tim.
On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 06:02:44PM -0400, Uri Gu
i was musing about the parrot last night and came up with an idea. what
about writing some of the perl ops in perl itself (or in hand coded
parrot assembler)? the origin of this, of course, is gnu emacs where
many of the common functions are written in lisp and not c. now i fully
expect most of t
