Dan Sugalski wrote: > The intent ultimately > is that you hand an AST, and potentially some rules, to IMCC and it > creates bytecode for you from it.
That's different, then. Then the whole issue of syntax goes away. Unless the data interchange format is textual; but even then, you'd want a syntax highly tuned for tree structures (and other things), and the current syntax doesn't sound like it fits this criterion. -- John Douglas Porter
