Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I realize that this language requires a more sophisticated parser than > Akkerman's original, but IMO it would be worth it. And I don't think > the parser needs to be /that/ sophisticated :-)
Mmmm. Prefix syntax (best Homer Simpson drooling noise :>) Seriously, a scheme-style parser is about as simple as it gets, especially if you leave out things like quasiquotation. You can write a straightforward one in something like less than a page of code. Parsabiliy is one area where Lisp/Scheme/etc beat essentially *everyone* else. That's also a major reason why they can have *much* more powerful macro systems. When Apple switched Dylan from prefix to infix, they had to abandon a large fraction of the power of their macro system... I'm sure I can get my hands on several small prefix parsers if we need them. -- Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
