--- Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > At 10:44 AM -0800 3/25/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote: > > > >So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any > > > >discussion/agreement of what it would entail? > > > > > > I, for one, think it's a great idea, and the thought of altering > > > perl 6's grammar to make it a functional language is sheer > genius, > > > making the concepts behind ML more accessible to folks used to > > > procedural languages. Darned good idea--I say start right away! > > > > |==============================================[*]| > > Sarcasmeter? > > lol -- I think my BS-o-meter just redlined, too.... > > But just to make sure I'm not completely clueless on this one, would > someone give me a clue as to exactly what P6ML is supposed to mean, > and > whether or not the original post was intended as humor? No insult > intended (at least not from me, lol), but ML as in "Markup Language"? > Or maybe as in the ML programming language (you know, the one used in > recursion examples), and it was a question of whether it was being > ported to parrot???? > My assumption is that Dan has chosen to deliberately misinterpret the P6ML as being "P6/ML" -- and that he's all in favor of making P6 more functional since it will make the parser easier.
Sadly, however, P6ML comes from P6/XML, and so Dan is condemned to slave away at a grammar which is going to make PL/I look easy, when all is said and done. (Although I still maintain that Fortran is currently underrepresented in core, since FORMATs went away. :-) =Austin > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your > desktop! > http://platinum.yahoo.com
