On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> I could spend a lot of time justifying it to you here and now, or I
> could spend the same time writing a detailed specification of the
> interpreter interface. I think, to be honest, it might be more
> productive for me to take the second option.
I agr
> "ST" == Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ST> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> we have very strong internal specs already that will support most
>> anything larry throws at us. stuff such as the op code loop, async
>> (file) i/o, events, etc, are all known to be neede
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> That's not entirely relevant any more. Parrot has a semi-autonomous
> existence as a generic bytecode interpreter. We may be a long way
> from having a language spec, but we're pretty damned close to having
> a spec for the interpreter.
I look forward t
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Uri Guttman wrote:
> we have very strong internal specs already that will support most
> anything larry throws at us. stuff such as the op code loop, async
> (file) i/o, events, etc, are all known to be needed so we can code them
> now that the design is firming up. we have t
> "ST" == Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ST> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
>> It's almost time to start coding, people, almost.
ST> Not to be an ass, but is it? It seems like we're still a long way from
ST> having a language spec.
we have very strong internal spe
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> It's almost time to start coding, people, almost.
Not to be an ass, but is it? It seems like we're still a long way from
having a language spec.
-sam
