----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Hursh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, July 22, 2004 3:07 pm Subject: Re: Why do users need FileHandles?
> Luke Palmer wrote: > > > JOSEPH RYAN writes: > > > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Date: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:04 pm > >>Subject: Re: Why do users need FileHandles? > >> > >> > >>>Second, I would suggest that it NOT go in a library...this is > >>>reasonably serious under-the-hood magic and should be > integrated into > >>>the core for efficiency. > >> > >>How would integrating this in the core make it more efficient? Core > >>or not, I'd see something like this being implemented with a custom > >>pmc. I tend to think of inclusion in the core being more of a > >>philosophical decision... > > > > > > Yes, it is. Whether or not a PMC is in the core, it should be > equally> fast. That is, unless Parrot is allowed intimate > knowledge of the PMC's > > internals. And there are very few (any?) PMCs that possess this > > property even now. > > > > Even more philosophical is "what is core?" I get the impression > that> Larry is trying to blur the distinction between core and non- > core as > > much as possible. So making it "go in the core" may just mean > that it's > > on the list of recommended modules to install. > > > > Luke > > How about we say "in core" means it packaged with the perl6 source > and > covered in the coresponding camel & lama books. :) Well, that's what all of the ruckus is about. There is a strong leaning towards including *no* builtin modules with the core. So, that leaves only the builtin functions and classes as "the core", and so what is "in core" becomes a pretty big deal. - Joe
