At 11:27 AM 24/04/2001 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>Or, rather, I think we should have one. Naming the interpreter separate
>from the language may help folks keep the various bits separate in their
>minds. (It'll certainly help me be clearer when I talk about it)
Actually, I think the language (the syntax) is becoming so much different
than Perl 5, that I think we would need another name for the language as
well... :-(
>Personally, I'm up for calling the interpreter "Parrot" unless someone has
>an objection...
Agreed.
- Branden
