Re: INP (imcc's not parrot) (was: Re: imcc hack for perl6 regexes)

2002-08-22 Thread Leopold Toetsch
'John Porter' wrote: Brent Dax wrote: No; but statements like imcc MUST provide access to ALL of parrot's (still very dynamic) feature set and discussions of imcc syntax naturally lead to questions of imcc's role in the parrot project. E.g. will the perl6 compiler target imcc? The perl6

INP (imcc's not parrot) (was: Re: imcc hack for perl6 regexes)

2002-08-21 Thread John Porter
Leopold Toetsch wrote: I don't understand why it is so hard to adopt. imcc is supposed to be a step closer to higher level languages, which is why I went that way. No problem here, it is called _intermediate_ ..., which is a worthful step in code generation, but - as always - there is a

RE: INP (imcc's not parrot) (was: Re: imcc hack for perl6 regexes)

2002-08-21 Thread Brent Dax
John Porter: # languages. Seems to me that to say that every feature of parrot # must be exposed in imcc is to imply that all upper-level # languages must go through imcc -- and that's something I Let me see if I can follow your logic: IMCC gives access to all Parrot features, therefore

Re: INP (imcc's not parrot) (was: Re: imcc hack for perl6 regexes)

2002-08-21 Thread 'John Porter'
Brent Dax wrote: John Porter: # languages. Seems to me that to say that every feature of parrot # must be exposed in imcc is to imply that all upper-level # languages must go through imcc -- and that's something I Let me see if I can follow your logic: IMCC gives access to all Parrot