Re: Anachronistic Acronyms in Parrot?

[Dan Sugalski]

At 09:31 AM 9/26/2001 -0400, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:

>Dan Sugalski writes:
>  > Not at the Parrot level they aren't. They might be faked out to be so at
>  > the Perl/Python/Ruby level, though.
>
>   Would it not make more sense for Parrot types to be first-class
>objects for the language being implemented?  It seems this would make
>things easier both for the upper-level runtimes and for
>multiple-language applications.

The variables themselves (scalar, hash, complex number, various objects) 
will be first-class objects. It's the lower-level stuff, like the vtables 
or GC data or thread information, that won't be. It'll still be exposed 
through the interpreter, but it won't be an object in the same way that a 
ruby/python/perl variable is.

                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk