At 12:11 PM 4/16/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>There are a number of reasons to *not* claim to parse perl 5 code.
>
>*) We won't load any perl 5 XS code
>*) We won't be getting the corner cases, and perl5 has a *lot*.
>*) It complicates the interpreter if we need to add code to support things
>t
At 05:34 PM 4/16/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:25:15PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >*cough*
> > s/parse/interpret/;
>
>Seems a bit of a shame to parse it and then not do anything with it,
>especially if we're trying to push Perl 6 as a common language runtime
>for
> The
> timescales of corporations like Sun are not the same as those commonly
> encountered in the open software arena.
Ditto for HP.
Jeff
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:11:41PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >I hereby declare that a package declaration at the front of a file
> >unambiguously indicates you are parsing Perl 5 code.
^^^
> Grand. To play devil's advocate here for a moment, t
I normally just lurk, but...
>
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why? We don't ask this of any other compiler, so why ask it of perl?
> > (You won't find this in a C, or Fortran, or Ada compiler...)
>
> Yes, but my compiled C binaries in /usr/bin don't break when I upgrade
> gcc.
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 10:39:55AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >To solve this versioning issue, is there a way Perl 6 compiler can just
> >figure out what's being fed?
>
> Why?
i) To make things easier for the programmer. (That's kinda the point of
Perl.)
ii) Because Larry said so, *and* decl
At 02:58 PM 4/15/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 10:39:55AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >To solve this versioning issue, is there a way Perl 6 compiler can just
> > >figure out what's being fed?
> >
> > Why?
>
>i) To make things easier for the programmer. (That's kinda
At 05:20 PM 4/16/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:11:41PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >I hereby declare that a package declaration at the front of a file
> > >unambiguously indicates you are parsing Perl 5 code.
>^^^
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:25:15PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >*cough*
> s/parse/interpret/;
Seems a bit of a shame to parse it and then not do anything with it,
especially if we're trying to push Perl 6 as a common language runtime
for running all sorts of bytecode-compiled languages. :)
--
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:19:38PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> Er, I don't get it. I'm proposing that if perl 6 determines it's been
> given perl 5 code, it does "exec perl5 $0". So thereafter it's as though
> perl 6 never existed as far as that code is concerned; whatever it wants to
> do sh
Okay, I've been pondering complex data structures, garbage collection, and
cache coherency for the past few days. (Between this, Unicode, the regex
engine, and backwards compatibility, I'll be easy to spot at TPC 5.0. Just
look for the tall guy wearing the wraparound canvas sweater...) Because
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> Besides the size and clunkiness issues, there's another problem. String
> evals in a perl 5 section of code will expect to be parsed as perl 5, which
> kinda precludes the whole "compile perl 5 to bytecode and pass it through
> the p526 converter" solution. Makes mixing an
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 09:58:05AM -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
> Name tricks are ugly, but useful. Perhaps the best solution would
> be to call the new interpreter perl6. If it finds itself being
> called 'perl' or 'perl5' then it should assume perl 5 code
I just worry about users not being awa
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> It is a servicable solution, just be ready for the extra problems.
I like it; it seems to raise far fewer problems than it solves.
In particular, it solves all the very thorny issues Dan enumerated.
--
John Porter
At 11:50 AM 4/16/2001 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > Besides the size and clunkiness issues, there's another problem. String
> > evals in a perl 5 section of code will expect to be parsed as perl 5, which
> > kinda precludes the whole "compile perl 5 to bytecode and pass i
At 02:33 PM 4/16/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 09:47 AM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>>As a very low-tech solution, why not bundle perl 5 *with* perl 6 so that
>>once perl 6 detects that it's been fed perl 5 code, it can send it to the
>>perl 5 compiler/interpreter.
>
>Besides the si
At 12:19 PM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>Or were you espousing the notion that perl 6 programs should be able to
>contain sections of perl 5 code? That gives me strange palpitations.
This is what I've been arguing against. Unless I misunderstand (and it
wouldn't be the first time... :)
Dan Sugalski wrote
> At 12:19 PM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > Or were you espousing the notion that perl 6 programs should
> > be able to contain sections of perl 5 code? That gives me
> > strange palpitations.
>
> This is what I've been arguing against. Unless I misunderstand
> (and
I don't get it.
The first and foremost duty of Perl 6 is to parse and execute Perl 6.
If it doesn't, it's not Perl 6. I will call this the Prime Directive.
I think as the first approximation the implementation of Perl 6 should
get that "simple" task right. If it doesn't, all our talk and work
At 09:47 AM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 12:11 PM 4/16/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>There are a number of reasons to *not* claim to parse perl 5 code.
>>
>>*) We won't load any perl 5 XS code
>>*) We won't be getting the corner cases, and perl5 has a *lot*.
>>*) It complicates the in
At 02:49 PM 4/16/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>Thinking about the 5->6 migration and coexistence is good and useful,
>but since that doesn't advance the Prime Directive, thinking about it
>*too* much now or fighting over the niggly details is somewhat wasted
>effort.
We have been stuck in
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> We have been stuck in a sort of Gilbert and Sullivan debate,
DS> haven't we? Silly, definitely silly.
o/' perl6 is the very model of a modern major interpreter o/'
:-)
uri
--
Uri Guttman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 03:23:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 12:19 PM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> >Or were you espousing the notion that perl 6 programs should be able to
> >contain sections of perl 5 code? That gives me strange palpitations.
>
> This is what I've been arguing a
23 matches
Mail list logo
