On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Jon Lang <datawea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, then. If I'm understanding this correctly, the problem being > raised has to do with deciding which language features to treat as > primitives and which ones to bootstrap from those primitives. The > difficulty is that different compilers provide different sets of > primitives; and you're looking for a way to avoid having to write a > whole new Prelude for each compiler. Correct? > > Note my use of the term "language features" in the above. Presumably, > you're going to have to decide on some primitive functions as well as > some primitive datatypes, etc. For instance: before you can use > meta-operators in the Prelude, you're going to have to define them in > terms of some choice of primitive functions - and that choice is > likely to be compiler-specific. So how is that any easier to address > than the matter of defining datatypes? Or is it? Did I miss something here? I've never heard Prelude. I'm not really convinced that each implementation should have a large set of shared code; that seems contrary of the idea of having independent implementations. Having to support a common set of implemented classes like this may end up being more of a burden than a benefit. You may find each implementation replacing parts of the Prelude to serve their needs. It also seems like that Prelude.pm is dated and also very pugs specific, which is ironic. What are all the references to Pugs::Internals and pugs_internals_m:perl5? Is rx:Perl5 and rd:P5 valid perl6? I'm skeptical of the this idea unless someone can convince me otherwise. -Jason "s1n" Switzer
