On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
> For the full language spec, I don't think it's attainable, and honestly
> don't see the reason for it within the context of Perl.
I've got a simple reason for it - I think it's going to be part of the
Perl6 spec. Do I have any proof? Nope. We'll know when Larry's finished
with the Perl6 spec.
What about this work do you see an unatainable? We're really just talking
about defining an API for people to hook into the Perl 6 parser at various
stages. If you're correct and this really is a bad idea then we will have
lost little - no one will write any add-on parsers and we'll be left with
a well-documented interface.
> to _replace_ python, gnu c, java sdk, lisp, etc. (That's what I'm
> seeing here.)
Take off your visionary goggles. Nobody is suggesting that Perl will
become the prefered platform for any of those languages. However, if I
can take a well-established Python library and drop it into my new Perl 6
project I'd be pretty pleased. If I can write the recursive-searching
algorithm for my next project in Lisp instead of Perl, who's to say I
shouldn't be able to?
Think of it as the ultimate SWIG - no .i files needed!
> _Perl_ _within_ _a_ _Perl_ _context_ _and_ _for_ _Perl_ _purposes_,
Feeling a little hostile to the rest of the programming world? You're
sounding almost nationalistic! We're not at war.
> I have to be cynical about this. Of what benefit is this to the Perl
> community and language?
Yeesh. You'd think we were proposing a serious piece of work here! Of
what benefit to the Perl community is your staunch oposition to defining
an API that most of us want?
Is it just that you lack the imagination to see the potential benefit
here?
-sam
