Ultramarine Lorikeet. No reason in particular. I just
like saying "ultramarine".
Gregory Keeney
(Mmm... "ultramarine"... )
The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
Namespaces
(Am I the only person who wants to repeat Namespaces! with the same
intonation used for 'Monorail!' in the Simpsons?)
Not any more...
getting a whole lot out of the target.
You could write the results in memory and then dump it, but ... well, it
seems simpler to hand supply the config information. Trying to get
answers from an embedded target is tricky and sometimes even potentially
dangerous.
Gregory Keeney
Thomas Seiler
volved) for Parrot â that may be
more work than it is worth, however. I dug down in there once. It's kind
of scary.
I feel like I am missing something here, but I am not sure whatâ
Gregory Keeney
Dan Sugalski wrote:
The only problem I can forsee when doing cross-compilation is in the
building of the library files. Parrot itself... no big. We build
miniparrot for the platform you're on, then use the config file to
rebuild for the target platform. That part works out OK, but the
resulting
Larry Wall wrote:
In principle, cross-compile configuration is drop-dead easy. All you
need is a database of what the probe program *would* have answered
had you been able to run it on the other machine. (Getting someone
to write that database entry for you is the tricky part.) You also
have to
Herbert Snorrason wrote:
I suggest we institute a "Rule One" for Dan. (And number two, too,
while we're at it.) It'd be easier that way.
Ooh, ooh, I know, I know!
Rule Number One:
â No one wants the â [interrobang if your email client or font
doesn't like utf-8]
Rule Number Two:"
â Dan ge
uiet nasty.
Frameworked properly, however, such a script could work both for unknown
and known targets. (Robert is likely screaming: "Your re-inventing
autoconf!!!")
Gregory Keeney
