[ruby-talk:04294] Re: Content of the Perl6 talk

Hi,

FYI: Andreas Kupries wrote (on comp.lang.python and comp.lang.tcl):

> Dan Kuchler <[e-mail]> writes:
>
> > Andreas Kupries wrote:
>
> >> <quote http://www.perl.org/perl6/initial_meeting.html>
> >>> Syntax separation - multiple syntaxes ?  Perl6 offers the
> >>> possibility to ... write Perl programs in multiple syntaxes such
> >>> as Python, JavaScript, and Perl5 ...
>
>  >> This reminds me of Guile, which tried to do the same thing, no ?
>  >> Universal lisp engine below, multiple formats for programming it
>  >> above. Here just with the perl engine below. A try to unify
>  >> interpreters ? See also Jean-Claude's Minotaur, using a forth
>  >> engine below and beside interpreters for several scripting
>  >> languages to allow them to use each other (and their extensions)
>  >> hither and fro. With the long-term goal to make each interpreter a
>  >> set of routines above the universal forth engine below. Hm.
>
> Looking at my post and this I think that I came across as being
> opposed to this. I am not. I don't think that I will have time to
> actively participate in such an effort [*] but I will follow them with
> interest.
>
> [*] Maybe indirectly through working on the tcl core.
>
>  > I understood this to mean that for perl 6 they might try to
>  > architect it into a front-end/back-end style where the front-end has
>  > a parsing engine (and translator to byte codes or some intermediary
>  > language?)  and then the backend provides the code for actually
>  > implementing the various commands.
>
> Exactly. This is that guile tries to do too.
>
>  > If done correctly, only the perl front end would have to be
>  > implemented, but it would give others the opportunity for trying to
>  > write some new syntax (which could be like tcl, python, etc.) that
>  > would work with the existing perl backend.
>
>  > That was how I envisioned that bullet might be implemented..

--
Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)