On Jul 13, 2006 at 16:06, Erast Benson praised the llamas by saying: > > I don't want to insist on (1) too. But I must agree with Joerg that it > is unclear if Makefiles could be called as "scripts for compilation". > > Makefiles are programs written in non-scripting language. To understand > what non-scripting language is, I googled this: > > """I'd define a scripting language as one which requires you to put $ > or whatever in front of variable names, and makes quoting strings an > optional construct, and does string variable substitution inside string > constants unless you force it not to with odd escape characters. > A non-scripting language is one which has simple, clear-cut lexical > conventions and parsing syntax.""" > You run an interpreter[0] which loads the source script files[1] and executes it. The language is a mixture of declarative and iterative programming. It clearly falls in the remit of scripts for compilation.
Your paragraph appears to make python a non-scripting language. [0] make(1) [1] Makefile -- David Pashley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
