in reply to Re: Re^3: What is the big deal about PAR(rot)?
in thread What is the big deal about PAR?

I don't think he'd mind. Could be wrong, in which case I'll talk with him this summer if he makes it to OSCON.

The point is a dicey one. When moving to perl 6, do we leave alone those modules that exist for perl 5, or do we reimplement them because we need the functionality, and can potentially make it core stuff? (Real core stuff, not just shipped modules)

This affects not only PAR, but libnet, DBI (though I hope to get Tim to do a straight port), CGI, LWP, the XML modules... While the perl5->perl6 translator or the perl 5 mode may well be just good enough, at least some of the modules will need work (like DBI, because of the XS code).

I don't like the thought of stepping on anyone's toes, but I don't know that we should skip base functionality because someone's already done it for perl 5.

  • Comment on Re: Re: Re^3: What is the big deal about PAR(rot)?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: What is the big deal about PAR(rot)?
by diotalevi (Canon) on Mar 17, 2003 at 21:45 UTC

    I can only speak for myself but if I had a project that was in maintenance mode and someone else wanted to re-implement it differently and take over maintenance I'd be thrilled. I gather PAR is still in active development so there's the issues of differing visions to complicate the issue. Anyhow, there is a very positive way to take this (whether that happens is different).

    I just know I have very little "extra" time so I'm pleased as punch when other people sit down and do some work I'd otherwise do myself.

[reply]

In Section Meditations