David L. Nicol wrote: > > RFC: It's all exception handling. I imagine the core syntax description > as a set of catch clauses. Every token generates a "TOKEN-$whatever" > exception, which is caught according to the current situation. How's > that for a general paradigm? These things can be overloaded as needed to > implement Macros, variant syntaces, variant semantics, and so on. "All flow control will implemented as longjumps." -- John Porter
- Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need ... Jeremy Howard
- Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need ... Steve Fink
- Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need ... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need ... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need RFCs?) David L. Nicol
- Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need RFCs... Nathan Torkington
- Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need ... Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need RFCs... Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need ... David L. Nicol
- Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need RFCs... skud
- extremely general top level thread... John Porter
- extremely general top level th... David L. Nicol
- Re: extremely general top leve... John Porter
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Decklin Foster
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Steve Fink
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Damian Conway
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Dan Sugalski
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Larry Wall
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? David Corbin
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Dan Sugalski
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Ken Fox