On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 02:24 PM 12/17/00 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
> >It comes down to what is meant by "little language". When I hear that
> >term I immediately think Scheme and TCL.
> For my part, at least, I've been thinking of something either LISP-ish or
> very simple parameter setting/checking (like stuff in, say, your average
> .rc file with a little control flow thrown in) when it's brought up.
That's typically what I think of, too. When perl6.0 is released, it would
be nice if it were reasonably easy to write the appropriate modules (or
whatever) and use such little languages fairly easily.
The issues of 'use Python' or 'use Pythonish' are a quite different issue.
I don't think anyone believes it ought to be easy to *write* the Pythonish
module. But it ought to be *possible*.
In between, there is a continuous spectrum of possibilities, and it may
sometimes be appropriate to call on other tools to help out.
But I don't think this should affect perl6-internals-api-parser very much.
If the parser is sufficiently clever to parse something as complex as
Perl, then it can probably be coerced into parsing something much simpler.
So let's get on with the Perl6 parser.
--
Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dept. of Physics
Lafayette College, Easton PA 18042
