At 9:26 AM -0400 5/7/02, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>On Mon, 2002-05-06 at 16:26, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> I forgot to announce the call for questions here (sorry), but the
>> answers 9and the questions) to the first round of Ask The Parrot have
>> been posted over on use.perl.
>> http://use.perl.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/06/179233 for the interested.
>
>Some interesting items there. I'd like to ask a few follow-ups, but not
>sure who the right audience is. For now, let's assume it's this list,
>and not use.perl.org
Fair enough. If things start getting big we can go for another round
on use.perl.
>On language features: How is it that Parrot is language-neutral, and yet
>as a specific set of guarantees for destructors? Wouldn't those
>assumptions be wrong for, say, Scheme or Python?
Nope. Which isn't to say that it won't be the wrong way for other languages.
>Also on that point, what of closures? Can those be managed in an
>efficient, and yet language-neutral fashion?
Absolutely. Closures are relatively simple, and very language neutral
if you have a language that supports them. If your language doesn't,
there's no way to take them so you're fine there too.
>On the Perl5 handling: why do you need step 3? Specifically, why not
>just continue to use the Perl5 parser as the Perl5 front-end for Perl6?
>That should guarantee compatibility.
Because I don't want to maintain the perl 5 parser codebase--I'd
rather have a proper set of rules for the parser. It'll also be a
potentially pleasantly futile task for someone to undertake when they
want to learn the ins and outs of the parser.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
