At 1:44 PM -0700 on 4/8/00, Alain Farmer wrote:
>> 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.
Because I happen to have a good way of rewriting the syntax without
killing performance. Oddly enough, this is going to be FAR faster than
the equivelant set of 'do's, and much easier to read and understand.
>
>> 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.
It would, however, allow what you want -- and a lot more. I do have
some objections to Uli's plan (seems far to transparent to me), but
it's easily implemented too.
>
>> [I'm playing with the syntax -- comments are
>welcome]
>
>Alain: Only comments??
I consider 'comment' to have a _very_ broad definition. Anything from
quick `I hate it you #@^(*^@!# idiot' to a formal syntax spec. When I
say `comments are welcom' I mean input, suggestions, etc. of any kind.
>Sounds like we are not going to
>have much input/debate on the syntax of FreeScript.
Why?
>We
>will have what you provide us with.
No, with what I'm planbning to provide now, you'll have the tools to
extend it to do almost anything.
>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.
Alain, you're missing the poing of the recent Interpreter changes: I'm
trying to get the syntax out of my hands. Consider:
1) NuParser. Designed to be usable by anyone -- even the average
scripter. Replaces bison, which was a PITA to use.
2) Simplified relation between NullCPU and parser -- make it easier
to add syntax
3) Dynamic syntax modification -- adding syntax without even
recompiling FreeCard
4) ... (mwahahaha)
I want to get a basic interpreter done -- math, if/then/else, loops,
strings, etc. I then want to leave the rest of the commands elsewhere,
so that I need not deal with them. Or that so at least someone else can
help deal with them.
I don't want to have to implement every syntax proposal to come in. I
want whoever proposes it to be able to.
Somehow I think #3 and above, should the ever spread out of FreeCard,
are going to make me either famous or infamous; not quite sure which.
