On 9/7/04 6:31 PM, Gregory Keeney wrote: > Dan Sugalski wrote: >> Though it really ought to be on perl6-internals, since it's not really >> a perl thing at all, rather a parrot thing. I don't think I've the >> cycles to think about it for a while, though. > > Sounds like I need to dig through the mail archives, RFC's, etc. and try > to come up with a coherent picture of the state of Perl 6 app bundling. > I suspect it is not an issue for Parrot only or perl only or Perl only, > but something that all three will have to play nice about. > > I will try to work out a nice summary for everyone to argue over. (Maybe > John Siracusa will be willing to look it over before I post it; he is > good with this kind of stuff.)
I just want to make sure that people are thinking about it on all levels, not just the Parrot level. An ideal solution spans all levels. Unfortunately, in the absence of a design for such a solution (or even a concrete set of requirements) its hard to know what each part has to do. In these situations, it's best to just make sure the topic is "in play", and then let the geniuses stew on it for a while :) The the Parrot folks go really nuts, they could end up implementing 90% of the solution, in which case the perl 6 executable support is simple and the stdlib and third party library ecosystem follow naturally. At that point, the only remaining debate is "which lib, if any, is the 'default' or 'official' lib"? Anyway, I think I need to think about it some more too. And being the bottom-up kind of guy that I am (witness my religious reading of per6-internals despite the fact that I loathe C and a lot of the discussion goes over my head) I think I'll have a better picture of what's possible when Dan finally does get around to giving it some thought (and then having his thoughts endure the crucible that is p6i :) -John
