On 2/6/07, demerphq <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On 2/6/07, chromatic <email@example.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday 06 February 2007 02:11, demerphq wrote: > /I/ am /not/ going to fork Perl5 anytime soon, likely never, > certainly its not on my todo list for the next decade. I'm just > pointing out the obvious, unless our community sorts this schism out > thats whats going to happen. Goosen has already made a first step, and > I know that in private rumblings others have mentioned it as well. If > Perl5 does get forked I would think very seriously about working on > it. And I don't think im alone. > > Yves I tried forking perl some time ago; the general plan was to write a perl parser in perl -- no not as a wrapper around an C<eval> like Acme::Inline::PERL, but as a serious implementation of the language as specified, using pure perl to implement it. Towards dumping the resulting structures to something that GCC could handle; as well as having an easier-to-hack-on internals. I called the project "TERN" which was an abbreviation for TERN Extensible Rewriting Notation and even gave a talk on it at YAPC St. Louis, which absolutely sucked due to the convention neatly lining up with the perigee of my regularly scheduled moodswing. Anyway anyone is welcome to sign up for the TERN mailing list at http://savannah.nongnu.org/mail/?group=tern there is no traffic on it. Basically implementing Perl 5 is a lot of work as there are a lot of little pieces to it that have stuck on over the years. And there really isn't a whole lot of motivation to do it aside from wouldn't-it-be-cool which rarely lasts more than a few hours.