> Anthony: Let me try once more to get the full
> magnitude of what I'm actually planning of allowing
> in an efficient interpreter across: Dynamic
> rewriting of the syntax at runtime.
Alain: You are a hard act to follow, Anthony. In the
recent past, we had a heated debate concerning the
'evils' of the infamous "do" command. I was insisting
that "do" is useful and should be kept, while you were
dead-set against it. I'll admit now that "do" is less
useful than I thought, except in rare cases where you
need to create variableNames on the fly. Fast-forward
several weeks though ... and now you are suggesting:
"Dynamic rewriting of the syntax at runtime", an even
more 'risky' proposition than runtime-variable-naming.
> You put those commands I showed in a script
> somewhere. They add the specified syntax to the
> FreeScript language.
Alain: Don't get me wrong. I like the idea. The more
flexibility and accessibility, the better. My
suggestion is half-way in between yours and Uli's. I
want a (set of) FreeCard tool(s) that allow a
developer like myself to prototype new FreeScript
syntax, when the system is offline. Handler-triggered,
stack-based dynamic rewriting of the syntax at
runtime, as you suggest, goes much further than this.
> [I'm playing with the syntax -- comments are
welcome]
Alain: Only comments?? Sounds like we are not going to
have much input/debate on the syntax of FreeScript. We
will have what you provide us with. Don't get me
wrong. We appreciate the work you are doing. It's not
you. It's me. I just don't fit in with this group, I
guess, unless I become a 'real' programmer, which is
unlikely at this time.
Without animosity,
Alain Farmer
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
