On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 16:46:40 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: > There's a bit at the end of the current S29: > > =item A/S??: OS Interaction > > I've taken on a few of these, and in doing so found that I was making > some assumptions. I'd like to share those and see if they make sense: > > * POSIX will be a low-level module that slavishly reproduces the > POSIX interfaces as closely as possible (perhaps moreso than > Perl 5) > * OS, or whatever we call the core OS interaction module, will > have an interface which is entirely driven by Perl 6 and may not > resemble POSIX much at all. > * OS will use POSIX to implement its functionality, so only POSIX > need know how to get at the lowest level. > > Will that be reasonable? Am I stomping on anything?
I think OS is kind of bad. Perl 6 is designed to be embeddable, retargetable, etc. Sometimes the environment well be JS like, that is you have (possibly) readonly environment calls (gettimeofday, etc), but not others (IO)... Ideally I would like to have something more partitioned, and with a less binding name than OS. That said, there's no reason why there shouldn't be a convenience wrapper around a more partitioned set of APIs, that provides a more toolchain like approach, and keeps the docs together. -- Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://nothingmuch.woobling.org 0xEBD27418
pgpa4KWeuv2pQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
