On Sat, 08 Mar 2003 06:58, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 2:08 PM +1300 3/7/03, Sam Vilain wrote:
> >As long as mechanisms are put in place to allow modules to bypass
> > object encapsulation and private/public constraints, and given that
> > Parrot will have no XS,
>
> It wouldn't be wise to jump from "
At 2:08 PM +1300 3/7/03, Sam Vilain wrote:
As long as mechanisms are put in place to allow modules to bypass object
encapsulation and private/public constraints, and given that Parrot will
have no XS,
It wouldn't be wise to jump from "Parrot won't do perl 5's XS scheme"
to "Parrot won't have a way
On Fri, 07 Mar 2003 05:48, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> Over on perl6-internals you've been talking about the need for
> Associations. Is the addition of associations all that's missing from
> Parrot to support "exporting object relationships in a sensible and
> consistent manner"?
A prudent question.
Sam Vilain wrote:
>
> On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 05:10, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > Several people have mentioned a desire to see Perl6
> > and Parrot facilitate object persistence. Should
> > such issues be tackled in Parrot?
>
> Not necessarily. Just be friendly to object persistence
> frameworks by e
