At 10:29 AM 9/10/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>Erk, we seem to be muddling around in that great grey area between what is
>Parrot and what is Perl.
>
>Parrot is striving to be a common backend for multiple scripting languages,
>of which one is Perl 6, no? And, of course, to adequately test Parrot, you
>need to concurrently develop Perl 6, yes? And that is what is currently
>happening, yes? No. (At least, it doesn't seem so.)
No. We don't need perl to test the interpreter. Parser and compiler, yes,
interpreter no.
>Certainly, register creation, memory allocation, garbage collection, and
>opcode dispatch are definitely within the purview of Parrot. However, the
>opcodes' code themselves aren't - they're provided by the language.
Nope. The core opcodes are provided by the interpreter. A branch is a
branch is a branch, no matter what language generated it.
>Parrot may provide facilities for vtable dispatch and string handling, but a
>language isn't roped into using them.
True, but performance is going to really suck if they don't use them. Which
is OK, I don't mind if people work to get themselves bad performance. :)
>Things to keep in mind. (And another reason why it's good to have Namespace
>Police.... :)
For which reason we have brainwashed^Wrecruited Ben, it seems. Keen! (Smile
and wave to the OMCL, Ben... :)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
