Parrot "standard libraries"

Timothy S. Nelson wayland at
Fri Jul 31 03:12:43 UTC 2009

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Will Coleda wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Timothy S. Nelson<wayland at> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, James E Keenan wrote:
>>> 1.  Discussion of the benefits of adding any particular library to our
>>> "standard set" should also include any disadvantages or risks that that
>>> addition may pose.  Potential downsides would include:  More complexity in
>>> configuration?  Slows down the executables?  Bigger memory footprint?
>>        Hmm.  Have we also considered Larry's reasons for including as little
>> as possible[*] in the Perl6 standard libraries?  Not that I'm saying we have
>> to go with this, just that it might be a thought.
>> [*] FSVO "little" and "possible"
> Obligatory mention that parrot NE Perl 6 ...

 	I was trying to say that, but didn't communicate it well.  Thanks :).

> .... but considering that point in the context of parrot itself is
> probably worth doing.
> Note that we're not talking about bundling the C libraries, just
> probing for them and having some wrapper PIR to invoke them; the
> footprint on that should be low. We also don't have a CPAN to fall
> back on; if we're going to want to provide things we don't ship core,
> we need a mechanism for users and distros to bundle them in if they
> want; having that will make the "in or out" decision for each library
> easier to make, I think.

 	I vote packaging system++.  But it has to work well with the packaging 
systems that are native to the various OSs.


| Name: Tim Nelson                 | Because the Creator is,        |
| E-mail: wayland at    | I am                           |

Version 3.12
GCS d+++ s+: a- C++$ U+++$ P+++$ L+++ E- W+ N+ w--- V- 
PE(+) Y+>++ PGP->+++ R(+) !tv b++ DI++++ D G+ e++>++++ h! y-

More information about the parrot-dev mailing list