Uri Guttman wrote:
>
> the best fit is the TIL (threaded inline code) model we have
> discussed.
Yes!
--
John Porter
David L. Nicol wrote:
> Ken Fox wrote:
> > . The real problems of exception handling, closures, dynamic
> > scoping, etc. are just not possible to solve using simple C code.
> >
> > - Ken
>
> I'm not talking about translating perl to C code, I'm talking about
> translating perl to machine langua
Ken Fox wrote:
> Perl is more like lisp with a good syntax -- in other
> words about as far from C as you can get.
I agree 100%.
--
John Porter
> "DLN" == David L Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DLN> Ken Fox wrote:
>> . The real problems of exception handling, closures, dynamic
>> scoping, etc. are just not possible to solve using simple C code.
>>
>> - Ken
DLN> I'm not talking about translating perl to C code, I'm ta
Ken Fox wrote:
> . The real problems of exception handling, closures, dynamic
> scoping, etc. are just not possible to solve using simple C code.
>
> - Ken
I'm not talking about translating perl to C code, I'm talking about
translating perl to machine language.
C is babytalk compared to Perl,
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
> No, I'm not, it's the direction that RFC 61 ends up if you let it
> take you there.
You seem to be confusing:
(1) linking C code with Perl
with
(2) compiling Perl to C code
There is a world of difference. Swig does (1) pretty well already.
If you want a first c
Ken Fox wrote:
> Trolling?
No, I'm not, it's the direction that RFC 61 ends up if you let it
take you there.
fast perl6 becomes, as well as slicing, dicing and scratching your
back, a drop-in replacement for gcc.
--
David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[perl6-language removed from the follow-up]
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
> I want to see Perl become a full-blown C/C++ JIT. Since Perl is for
> a large part a compatible subset of C I don't see this as unrealistic.
Trolling? First, Perl is more like lisp with a good syntax -- in other
words about a
David Corbin wrote:
> A C JIT is an interesting idea.
>
> I think that a project works best when it has a set of goals (I haven't
> seen one yet really for Perl 6). Unless this is one of the goals, I can
> easily see how this could become a serious distraction to what I
> perceive as the like
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
>
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > I do want to have a set of C/XS/whatever sources as part of the test suite
> > as well--right now perl's test suite only tests the language, and I think
> > we should also test the HLL interface we present, as it's just as
> > important in so
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I do want to have a set of C/XS/whatever sources as part of the test suite
> as well--right now perl's test suite only tests the language, and I think
> we should also test the HLL interface we present, as it's just as
> important in some ways.
I want to see Perl become a f
11 matches
Mail list logo
