Re^6: Perl 6 and Perl 5 parsing

Yes, it's nightmarish, but it's not a reason for separating compile-time.

Huh? A nightmare is not worth avoiding? Why is it no reason?

Comment on Re^6: Perl 6 and Perl 5 parsing

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Perl 6 and Perl 5 parsing by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jan 14, 2011 at 20:58 UTC
I don't understand the confusion — it follows directly from the previous statement — so I throw the question back at you. If having a single compile doesn't prevent the nightmare, how can having a single compile be a reason for preventing the nightmare?	[reply]
Re^8: Perl 6 and Perl 5 parsing by moritz (Cardinal) on Jan 14, 2011 at 21:27 UTC
If having a single compile doesn't prevent the nightmare It might not prevent the whole nightmare, but nearly all real-world usage cases. So it is a good reason for separating compile time and run time. Perl 6 - second systems done right	[reply]
Re^9: Perl 6 and Perl 5 parsing by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jan 17, 2011 at 16:57 UTC
I don't see how it helps at all, especially in real-world usage cases. Could you give a real-world example where it helps? The only cases I can come up with would only exist if someone intentionally wanted polymorphic code, and that can be done under with existing builds.	[reply]