Brent Fulgham wrote:
> > I think there is an undiscussed assumption about the implementation
> > language in there somewhere...
>
> I think you may have missed the context of the message. John was talking
> about creating his Alpha using various existing projects that had already
> been done in C++.
Why is he bothering? A year to produce a prototype doesn't seem like a
useful way to expend effort on something that isn't actually perl6.
> > We've been down that path already - Topaz. With all due respect this is
> > supposed to be a community rewrite. Your proposal doesn't seem to be
> > along those lines.
>
> With all due respect, I think you may be taking this out of context. I
> don't believe John's intent was to hijack the process. He was outling
> a theoretical schedule that could be used to provide a working
> Perl5 -> Perl6 migration path.
I'm not saying it was. However I don't see how the proposal would aid
the migration - after all what he is writing will be neither perl5 nor
perl6.
Alan Burlison
