On 06/12/2007, Waldemar Kornewald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't want C. I can use that already. I want a language that is much
> more productive (that 20K lines thing, please! :), but with a nice and
> math-like syntax for math operations and an overall simple syntax that
> doesn't add unnecessary noise and doesn't look like ^#:!$%[{ or
> ()()((((())), but is actually readable.You could take the existing Smalltalk parser and define the syntax you want for math expressions. If it was me I'd add some kind of new literal where you could paste LaTeX math code and that would be translated behind the scenes to the correct operations :) > What bothers me more is that if the lower-level language is based on > Smalltalk syntax then how are the other languages going to easily and > comfortably interface with that syntax? It'll probably have to look > like a mixture, similar to Objective C. The function language is built exactly like that, and it only looks like a mixture where the mixture features are actually used. More over the [receiver message: arg] expressions are just a syntactic facility, they could be represented as (object receiver message: arg) and it would make no difference to the end result. -- Damien Pollet type less, do more [ | ] http://typo.cdlm.fasmz.org _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
