Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > > >>>>> "Rob" == Rob Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Km> i am just curious -- is perl 6 coming with a compiler ? > >> > >> Why would they remove a feature already available since Perl 1? > > Rob> I think you and I both know what Km means by a 'compiler'. > > No. I don't we can possibly know precisely what is meant without > elaboration.
Nobody asked for your precise knowledge. In fact Perl's whole thesis is opposite to that idea. The DWIM semantics are core to the whole concept. > Hence, I'll answer the answer that matters the most to me. :) > > Most people that want a "compiler" (in the sense of creating an > executable) either aren't paying attention, or have nefarious schemes > in mind. So, I'll answer the answer that actually fits the Perl > world. Sorry, but I can't grasp this one at all! Aren't paying attention to what? And what sort of nefarious schemes? Aren't we in danger of driving Perl under ground here? :) Just to pick the remainder of your nits, a compiler traditionally creates an object file. A linker will then form an executable image out of those parts. That's still very much a valid model: how nice it would be to compile a.pl and b.cpp and assemble c.asm and then just link the three with all necessary libraries! But then it wouldn't be the language that it is. Here's to symbiotic nit-picking! Cheers, Rob -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
