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
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
> "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] --
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
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
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
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... :)
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 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
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
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
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
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
> The
> timescales of corporations like Sun are not the same as those commonly
> encountered in the open software arena.
Ditto for HP.
Jeff
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
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
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. :)
--
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 12:11:41PM -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
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
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
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.
22 matches
Mail list logo
