Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
John Tobey wrote: > Ken Fox <kfox@vulpes.com> wrote: > > Because it's a good way to get an implementation with clearly defined > > interfaces and simple structure without a lot of code. For example, I'd > > love to have the Perl 6 parser and resulting parse tree hackable in > > Perl without having to dive into C. IMHO the best way to achieve that is > > to implement the parser in Perl. If we have a Perl parser in Perl, then > > why wouldn't we slap a back-end on it and make it a Perl compiler? (Even > > if it's just a subset of Perl it would still be *really* useful.) > Yes. Also, if we maintain both implementations, or at least some glue > for Perl to hook into, we might get a Perl debugger in pure Perl. > There is no way Perl6 will be written entirely in any dialect of Perl. I definitely agree. However, I have to agree that I would like to see the parser written in a subset of Perl. At the conference, Dan suggested that it's imperative that this subset of Perl be source-to-source translatable into C. Even pa GCC front-end wouldn't work, because we want it to be compatible with other compilers. Basically, my goal in that idea is to implement the parser in a maintainable way that allows us to easily port Perl to new architectures (such as the JVM). I would very much like to have a parser that I can bootstrap into native JVM code. ;) -- Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn