Brent Dax wrote: > John Porter: > # languages. Seems to me that to say that every feature of parrot > # must be exposed in imcc is to imply that all upper-level > # languages must go through imcc -- and that's something I > > Let me see if I can follow your logic: IMCC gives access to all Parrot > features, therefore IMCC must be used. > . . . > It may well be that IMCC is the best way to generate Parrot bytecode, > but nobody's saying it's the *only* way.
No; but statements like "imcc MUST provide access to ALL of parrot's (still very dynamic) feature set" and discussions of imcc syntax naturally lead to questions of imcc's role in the parrot project. E.g. "will the perl6 compiler target imcc?" While imcc is cool and worthy, it probably oughtn't be discussed on this list untless/until it is a "blessed" member of the parrot suite. -- John Douglas Porter
