Re: Hmmm.... future of cons?

> Stephen, I'd like you to pipe up here.  What was your original plan?
> Did you have a migration path in mind?

Not specifically.  Given that choice of language is so much a religious
issue, I viewed SCons as pretty separate from Cons, despite the obvious
architectural debt owed.  I'm actually a little surprised by the extent
to which people are looking at them as different points on the same
contiuum, and talking about conversion between them.  Apart from the
obvious limit on my own development time, I never intended it to be an
either/or proposition between Cons and SCons, and thought (or hoped?)
that Cons *would* find a way to continue independent existence.

That said:  SCons *has* been architected with a clear separation
between its internal build engine, and the user front end.  The
implementation of the "classic" (Python-)script-as-config-file interface
is just a moderately thin wrapper around the build engine.

If there's a way for Perl code to interface to Python objects, then it
actually wouldn't be too difficult to create and maintain a "classic
Cons" Perl interface.  Is that possible?  I know Perl6 is going to
use the Parrot VM under the hood, which I believe is supposed to be a
lingua franca for arbitrary scripting language wrappers (and no, I'm not
talking about the April Fools' Parrot announcement), but I don't know
how real it is yet or if people want to wait that long.

Anyone have any insight on marrying Perl and Python (a shotgun wedding
if ever there was one... :-)?

	--SK


_______________________________________________
[email protected]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/cons-discuss
Cons URL: http://www.dsmit.com/cons/