On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Reini Urban wrote: >> >> Problem: >> >> Most packages will not accept packages with /usr/bin/scheme, >> /usr/bin/lisp, /usr/bin/forth, /usr/bin/lua, /usr/bin/tclsh >> were these are the parrot implementations. > > Of course we don't want to hijack existing language executables in the > distribution packages. But, it should be an easy compilation option in case, > for example, someone is setting up a tiny embedded linux and wants to run > Parrot in place of a whole collection of languages. > > It's important to keep in mind that for the most part, at least on > unix-related operating systems, executables for a particular language will > simply be an 'ln -s' to /usr/bin/parrot (taking advantage of the $0 > executable name information to set up certain configuration for the runtime > environment).
I'm curious how you envision languages registering themselves for this special treatment? -- Will "Coke" Coleda
