On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 10:20:57AM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Part of "configuration" could be building a #define pile so you can
> use foo and bar in the .c files, but they're invisibly translated into
> Parrot_ and so on equivalents.
If I do this, people *will* complain I'm going the way
Simon Cozens writes:
> I am in two minds here. I want to have Parrot_... prefices on
> functions even if they're *not* completely necessary /pour
> encourager les autres/. However, I don't want to go the way of
> opening up everything in a public API righht now, because once
> you've exported a s
At 05:25 AM 9/11/2001 -0700, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
>However, before I do this, I would like to bring up
>the question of prefixes once again. Do we really need a 7
>letter, mixed-case prefix (Parrot_)?
Externally exposed, yes.
That's not to say that the programmer working inside the core needs t
--- Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 11:26:03AM -0700, Benjamin Stuhl
> wrote:
> > > It's not a prioirty, but it's so much easier to walk
> the
> > > correct path from the start. Since it's all Parrot,
> it's even easier.
> >
> > Hear, hear! I remember the pain i
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 11:26:03AM -0700, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
> > It's not a prioirty, but it's so much easier to walk the
> > correct path from the start. Since it's all Parrot, it's even easier.
>
> Hear, hear! I remember the pain in 5.005_5* of turning off
> PERL_POLLUTE. I expect that ther
--- "Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wisely wrote:
> On Monday 10 September 2001 01:08 pm, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > And in addition - why are we worrying about namespace
> collision RIGHT NOW?
> > Sure, when Parrot can be embedded, then we should
> ensure that our names
> > aren't going to cl
Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> It's not a prioirty, but it's so much easier to walk the correct path from
> the start. Since it's all Parrot, it's even easier.
I agree. How about this: when the code is available (i.e., this
afternoon), why don't you sit down with whoever else feels
passionately ab
At 01:20 PM 9/10/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Monday 10 September 2001 01:08 pm, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > And in addition - why are we worrying about namespace collision RIGHT NOW?
> > Sure, when Parrot can be embedded, then we should ensure that our names
> > aren't going to clash. But
On Monday 10 September 2001 01:08 pm, Simon Cozens wrote:
> And in addition - why are we worrying about namespace collision RIGHT NOW?
> Sure, when Parrot can be embedded, then we should ensure that our names
> aren't going to clash. But who in their right minds is going to embed
> Parrot in anyth
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 10:58:33AM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> let's assume that Parrot will only officially be part of the Perl project,
> and focus on writing more Parrot code instead of arguing about
> namespaces.
What He Said.
And in addition - why are we worrying about namespace colli
On Monday 10 September 2001 12:58 pm, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Here's my Official Word. Right now it's too early to know whether
> building perl6's runtime to also support other languages will impact
> perl6's speed or size. We also have faced skepticism about the whole
> effort from other lan
Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> Like I said, just things to keep in mind. There's a slight difference
> between designing and coding Parrot as an interpreter backend, and coding it
> as a backend to Perl that other languages can use. (I'm in favor of the
> latter, though public opinion seems to fa
On Monday 10 September 2001 11:16 am, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> No. We don't need perl to test the interpreter. Parser and compiler, yes,
> interpreter no.
The code that we are writing in assembler is Parrot opcode that we would
expect a Perl parser and compiler to spit out. (That's all I'm saying.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 10:29:13AM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> Parrot is striving to be a common backend for multiple scripting languages,
> of which one is Perl 6, no? And, of course, to adequately test Parrot, you
> need to concurrently develop Perl 6, yes? And that is what is currently
At 10:29 AM 9/10/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>Erk, we seem to be muddling around in that great grey area between what is
>Parrot and what is Perl.
>
>Parrot is striving to be a common backend for multiple scripting languages,
>of which one is Perl 6, no? And, of course, to adequately test
At 03:55 PM 9/10/2001 +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Erk, we seem to be muddling around in that great grey area between what is
> > Parrot and what is Perl.
>
>Yes, which leads me on to think...
>
>(With my "maintainer of the Coding PDD" hat on)
>
>Pr
Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erk, we seem to be muddling around in that great grey area between what is
> Parrot and what is Perl.
Yes, which leads me on to think...
(With my "maintainer of the Coding PDD" hat on)
Presumably we have to decide what bits of code have a Parrot_
Erk, we seem to be muddling around in that great grey area between what is
Parrot and what is Perl.
Parrot is striving to be a common backend for multiple scripting languages,
of which one is Perl 6, no? And, of course, to adequately test Parrot, you
need to concurrently develop Perl 6, yes?
18 matches
Mail list logo
