The Perl 6 Design team met via phone on 22 November 2006. Damian, Allison, Patrick, Jesse, Nicholas, and chromatic attended. These are the notes:
Damian:
- a bit of a challenging week
- family stuff here
- also had apocalyptic Biblical weather: snow, hail, 40 C temperatures,
gale-force winds, a plague of snakes
- haven't worked as hard as I meant to work on S26
- working on it at night, when I can't see the snakes
- 60% of the way through the final read-through
- I swear that I will post it today
- spent a lot of time implementing a POD6 to XHTML parser
- very close to having that done
- might be out in a couple of days
- it's about 600 lines of code
- mostly package declarations
- one of the big changes was that POD6 is descriptive, not
presentational
- that made XHTML much easier
- it was a Basic decision
- the I, U, and B mark Unusual, Important, and Basis of the surrounding
text
- that actually helps!
- Synopsis itself is just shy of 10,000 words
- I removed a lot of stuff from the parser that wasn't in the Synopsis
- the Synopsis itself will be out before I sleep today
- the parser, realistically, will be probably later this week
c:
- fixed a Parrot bug for Patrick yesterday: Patrick's
test suite issue with
Test::Harness
- looked at MiniPerl6 for Parrot
- did a bit of poking there, but Jerry has had more luck
Allison:
- having fun with a Parrot week
- ran into a TGE bug with vtable methods
- still isn't fixed
- working on the IO PDD today
Jesse:
- not much to report here either
- want to hear from Larry what's left on the horizon
- what are big things left needing definition?
- there are a few undefined holes
c:
Jesse:
- that's at the top of the list
Nicholas:
- the part that scares me at the moment is the thread about dynamic scope,
continuations, and STM
- how does STM fit with continuations?
- is there a language with both of them implemented or are we trailblazing
here?
Allison:
- the IO language does something similar, if I recall correctly
- do you see something problematic?
Nicholas:
- you seem to have trouble reconciling those and dynamic scope
Allison:
- the dynamic binding proposal?
Nicholas:
- if you open a transaction, take a continuation, then commit the
transaction, what happens when you resume the continuation?
Allison:
- you essentially have two separate transactions
- you have the initial state of things
- in both the original execution and the resumed continuation, you have
the hypothetical state of the STM transaction within the
continuation
- all you've done by reinvoking the continuation is to restart the
transaction
c:
- seems like you can ask the same question about doing IO in
continuations
