On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Kent Tenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_thread/thread/d924498ae98e05d3 > > CLP thread about metaprogramming
Thanks for this link. The discussion there could be considered a starting point. However, I prefer to approach the subject from other directions. I remember the first time I heard about xml. I thought, how can xml encode meaning? The answer, clear in retrospect, is that it doesn't. Meaning resides in programs such as Leo, that supports .leo files. These .leo (xml) files have a meaning *to Leo*. Similarly, Python's parser doesn't understand the meaning of the programs it is compiling. Neither does the Python interpreter, for that matter! So "meaning" happens implicitly, as least at present. OTOH, people explicitly understand meaning, so maybe automating what people do will lead to richer kinds of meaning for computers. Another point of view. Tools like pythoscope "fake" understanding of certain aspects of Python programs. Python has good introspection facilities in some respects, and in other respects the introspection capabilities are non-existent. That doesn't mean people can't write introspection code. For example, see the code that traces the GC in leoPy.leo:: 'Code-->Core classes-->@thin leoGlobals.py-->Garbage Collection' So lib2to3 is just the first baby step towards treating Python programs as data in interesting ways. We won't run out of ideas in this area in my lifetime. Edward --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
