On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Allison Randal <allison@perl.org> wrote:
> Reini Urban wrote:
>>
>> Problem:
>>
>> Most packages will not accept packages with /usr/bin/scheme,
>> /usr/bin/lisp, /usr/bin/forth, /usr/bin/lua, /usr/bin/tclsh
>> were these are the parrot implementations.
>
> Of course we don't want to hijack existing language executables in the
> distribution packages. But, it should be an easy compilation option in case,
> for example, someone is setting up a tiny embedded linux and wants to run
> Parrot in place of a whole collection of languages.
>
> It's important to keep in mind that for the most part, at least on
> unix-related operating systems, executables for a particular language will
> simply be an 'ln -s' to /usr/bin/parrot (taking advantage of the $0
> executable name information to set up certain configuration for the runtime
> environment).
I'm curious how you envision languages registering themselves for this
special treatment?
--
Will "Coke" Coleda
|