(I tried to move to the
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 09:38 PM 8/4/00 +0200, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > This does complicate the job of the parser/lexer rather
> > > considerably.
> >
> >Why? Isn't it 'just' a matter or making the lexer read from a
> >hot-redirectable input stream?
>
> If it is, then it's not that big a deal, nor would it be all that
> useful.
Do you believe that simplicity and power are antithetical? I
don't. Example? eval(), Ofrth, Lisp, the subroutine, the programmable
computer, the Turing machine, the DNA chain...
> Wiht substitutions it's more than that, and if we're going to
> do this, we ought *not* essentially duplicate C's #define
> stuff.
Right!
> [...]
> The cleverer the preprocessor, the more work the lexer/parser needs to
> do. Which is dandy but, as I said, if you're going to do it, do it
> once and do it with some force.
Don't you see? The preprocessor is *Perl*.
Thinking about it, my proposal is even more closely related to Lisp's
read-macros than to Forth's IMMEDIATE (*) words.
(*) I'm not shouting, Forth is an all-caps language.
--
Jean-Louis Leroy
http://users.skynet.be/jll
