On Oct 7, 2006, at 7:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I meant the list, but I guess your reply-to didn't go to the list.
I don't set a Reply-To (nor does the list), so you get me by default.
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
On 10/7/06, Joshua Juran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 7, 2006, at 8:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I mean a real one though. Like actually implementing the lexer,
> parser, etc. As part of our toolset?
I'm not sure I see the point. The whole idea of Perl Power Tools as
I understand it is to make available the usual suite of Unix tools on
platforms which are not typically deployment targets. A perfect
example of this is my own Lamp environment, a Unix layer on top of
classic Mac OS. Typical source packages make assumptions that don't
hold on my system -- often the existence of certain system calls,
headers, or utilities -- or have other dependencies on glibc or gcc.
On the other hand, perl is rather portable, once you get around not
having the infrastructure to run the configuration and build scripts.
Now that I have a working perl (miniperl, actually) I can simply
download utilities like ls, tee, and tr instead of writing my own
versions in C++ or trying to wrangle the GNU build system.
Having the requisite functioning C perl makes a pure-Perl perl
pointless, at least in the context of Perl Power Tools. Maybe
there's another reason to write one, but I don't see how I as a PPT
user would benefit.
However, I think a pure-Perl Bourne shell is a great idea. :-)
Josh
> On 10/6/06, Joshua Juran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 2006, at 9:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > Anyone want to write a Perl interpreter in Perl?
>>
>> It's already been done -- a pure-Perl Perl interpreter is built
into
>> perl. It's called 'eval'. :-)
