On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 11:02 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any discussion/agreement of what it would entail?
Imho P6ML is a bad idea, if it means what I think it means (creating a parser for quasi-MLs). People will laugh at our folly, and rightly so for trying to be able
My own musing was not something that would accept bad XML, but something more geared as a P6-based replacement for the steaming hunk of crap known as XSL. An XML-based derivative that performs XML transformations, allowing/using embedded P6 regexs, closures, etc., and able to more easily translate XML <==> P6 data.
Something like that might significantly help P6 adoption rates.[*] While we're stuck with XML, I'm not willing to say we in Perl-land should be stuck with the currently craptacular XML transformation methods being adopted by other languages. :-P
Anyway, it's a future library issue more than a language development one, but I'd be interested in hearing if any such plans were already underway.
MikeL
[*] For example, one of the Very First Things I'll be doing with Perl6 is, of course, creating a P6-specific companion to ASP/JSP/PHP, but one that's substantially more OO in nature... all of those *Ps have pretty poor capabilities, and do not allow sufficiently flexible OO-based templatizations, in my experience. And while P5's Mason is impressive, one can imagine a more firmly P6, OO-based solution that would have a *lot* of additional speed/capability. (I have a longtime P5 prototype that we use here, but limitations of the P5 implementation makes it annoyingly slow during template compilation & init.)
