Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
At 12:43 PM 7/24/00 -0400, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 12:34:19PM -0400, jdporter@min.net wrote:
> > horos wrote:
> > > LALR would be awesome, I would even say essential. It strikes at the
> heart of
> > > the complaint people have of perl being a 'messy' language, puts it
> on the the
> > > same playing field as Java and Python.
> >
> > That would tantamount to Perl (aka Larry, aka the Perl community) saying,
> > "We were wrong, Java and Python were right." But we weren't wrong.
>
>Why can't perl ultimately support multiple syntax conventions? Why
>can't the lexer/parser be pluggable?
Might as well go all the way, then--separate out the lexer/parser, the bit
that turns the parsed syntax into an optree, the optimizer, and the backend
that actually executes perl. Which, thinking about it, isn't that bad an
idea, since the costs you'd pay for hard separation wouldn't hit all that
often, and we could end up with specialized segments for specialized
purposes. (Like, say, an optimizer that was really good put took ages to
spit out the optree (or bytecode, or whatever), unsuitable for on-the-fly
program parsing/execution, but real handy for precompiling libraries and
big programs...)
Anyone care to put together an RFPC for me on this one? (Seeing as it
likely falls within my purview, after all)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk