On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Tim Bunce wrote:
[...]
> That beautiful code will be beautifully _open_ to _external_ extensions.
> And that is how I imagine that Perl 5 support should be implemented.
Exactly. I am pretty sure that already at the meeting in Monterey
someone suggested that Perl5 should be
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 09:23:56AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Tim Bunce wrote:
> > If the file doesn't start with Perl 6 thingy then
> > it's Perl 5. Period.
>
> To mandate the impossible is to mandate failure.
>
> "Nothing can parse perl like Perl."
>
> Why is that?
Because perl has a bunch
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 10:16 AM 4/17/2001 +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
: >On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:49:07PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
: > > People seem to think that telling Perl 5 apart from Perl 6 is trivial.
: >
: >My reading of Larry's comments is that it will be _made_ trivial at the
: >
At 10:16 AM 4/17/2001 +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:49:07PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > People seem to think that telling Perl 5 apart from Perl 6 is trivial.
>
>My reading of Larry's comments is that it will be _made_ trivial at the
>file scope level. If the file doe
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 09:23:56AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> "Nothing can parse perl like Perl."
Just saying it doesn't make it true, you know.
--
Keep the number of passes in a compiler to a minimum.
-- D. Gries
Tim Bunce wrote:
> If the file doesn't start with Perl 6 thingy then
> it's Perl 5. Period.
To mandate the impossible is to mandate failure.
"Nothing can parse perl like Perl."
Why is that?
> My reading of Larry's comments is that it won't be "in" our "new
> beautiful code". [Umm, pride bef
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:49:07PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> I don't get it.
>
> The first and foremost duty of Perl 6 is to parse and execute Perl 6.
> If it doesn't, it's not Perl 6. I will call this the Prime Directive.
Great, but don't loose sight of the fact that a key feature of "
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 03:23:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 12:19 PM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> >Or were you espousing the notion that perl 6 programs should be able to
> >contain sections of perl 5 code? That gives me strange palpitations.
>
> This is what I've been arguing a
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:19:38PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> Er, I don't get it. I'm proposing that if perl 6 determines it's been
> given perl 5 code, it does "exec perl5 $0". So thereafter it's as though
> perl 6 never existed as far as that code is concerned; whatever it wants to
> do sh
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> We have been stuck in a sort of Gilbert and Sullivan debate,
DS> haven't we? Silly, definitely silly.
o/' perl6 is the very model of a modern major interpreter o/'
:-)
uri
--
Uri Guttman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
At 02:49 PM 4/16/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>Thinking about the 5->6 migration and coexistence is good and useful,
>but since that doesn't advance the Prime Directive, thinking about it
>*too* much now or fighting over the niggly details is somewhat wasted
>effort.
We have been stuck in
I don't get it.
The first and foremost duty of Perl 6 is to parse and execute Perl 6.
If it doesn't, it's not Perl 6. I will call this the Prime Directive.
I think as the first approximation the implementation of Perl 6 should
get that "simple" task right. If it doesn't, all our talk and work
Dan Sugalski wrote
> At 12:19 PM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > Or were you espousing the notion that perl 6 programs should
> > be able to contain sections of perl 5 code? That gives me
> > strange palpitations.
>
> This is what I've been arguing against. Unless I misunderstand
> (and
At 12:19 PM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>Or were you espousing the notion that perl 6 programs should be able to
>contain sections of perl 5 code? That gives me strange palpitations.
This is what I've been arguing against. Unless I misunderstand (and it
wouldn't be the first time... :)
At 02:33 PM 4/16/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 09:47 AM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>>As a very low-tech solution, why not bundle perl 5 *with* perl 6 so that
>>once perl 6 detects that it's been fed perl 5 code, it can send it to the
>>perl 5 compiler/interpreter.
>
>Besides the si
At 11:50 AM 4/16/2001 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > Besides the size and clunkiness issues, there's another problem. String
> > evals in a perl 5 section of code will expect to be parsed as perl 5, which
> > kinda precludes the whole "compile perl 5 to bytecode and pass i
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> Besides the size and clunkiness issues, there's another problem. String
> evals in a perl 5 section of code will expect to be parsed as perl 5, which
> kinda precludes the whole "compile perl 5 to bytecode and pass it through
> the p526 converter" solution. Makes mixing an
At 09:47 AM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 12:11 PM 4/16/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>There are a number of reasons to *not* claim to parse perl 5 code.
>>
>>*) We won't load any perl 5 XS code
>>*) We won't be getting the corner cases, and perl5 has a *lot*.
>>*) It complicates the in
At 05:34 PM 4/16/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:25:15PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >*cough*
> > s/parse/interpret/;
>
>Seems a bit of a shame to parse it and then not do anything with it,
>especially if we're trying to push Perl 6 as a common language runtime
>for
At 12:11 PM 4/16/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>There are a number of reasons to *not* claim to parse perl 5 code.
>
>*) We won't load any perl 5 XS code
>*) We won't be getting the corner cases, and perl5 has a *lot*.
>*) It complicates the interpreter if we need to add code to support things
>t
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:25:15PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >*cough*
> s/parse/interpret/;
Seems a bit of a shame to parse it and then not do anything with it,
especially if we're trying to push Perl 6 as a common language runtime
for running all sorts of bytecode-compiled languages. :)
--
At 05:20 PM 4/16/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:11:41PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >I hereby declare that a package declaration at the front of a file
> > >unambiguously indicates you are parsing Perl 5 code.
>^^^
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:11:41PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >I hereby declare that a package declaration at the front of a file
> >unambiguously indicates you are parsing Perl 5 code.
^^^
> Grand. To play devil's advocate here for a moment, t
23 matches
Mail list logo
