At 02:43 PM 4/5/2001 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Yep, something like this would be cool. But as Dan suggested we'll
>probably have to let Larry clarify his intent here.
Somewhere or other Larry talked about this. Might've been in LA1, might've
been somewhere else.
>I read it as "it
>would be cool to assume that we're getting real Perl 5 code", rather
>than as just assuming Perl 5 non-strict policies, but actual Perl 6
>code.
>
>I agree with Ed that, if you think about it, parsing Perl 5 in the Perl
>6 detachable-lexer-parser model shouldn't (hopefully) be any harder than
>parsing Python (or Parrot :) syntax.
To be honest, if we lop out some of the nastier bits of perl 5 that have
been contemplated, then making perl 6 grok code that uses them will be
reasonably non-trivial.
Besides, I really do *not* want to have perl 6 fully compatible with all
perl 5 source for another reason. If we say we're not, but some perl 5 code
does parse and run, then we get nice brownie points. If, on the other hand,
we say we *are* perl 5 compatible, every single silly little
incompatibility will be a black mark. Perl 5 is enough of a moving, poorly
defined, target that I'd rather not shoot directly at it.
Which isn't to say I'd be against a parser plug-in on CPAN that ate perl 5
code--that'd be rather cool. I just don't want to promise that perl 6 will
eat all perl 5 code.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
