On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
> Because what is the parser/lexer/tokenizer parsing? Perl? Pythonic?
> Javanese? All of them? Thinking of just the parser as a single entity
> seems to me to be headed into trouble unless we can define in advance what
> type of role these dialects will play in the language, and at what point
> they merge into a single entity and how.
Now matter how we slice it, it's going to be very hard for the first
person to twist perl6 to parse something that is both complex and very
different from Perl6. And I'm unconvinced that this difficulty ought to
hold up the entire process. It would be quite ironic if perl6 never gets
off the ground because we can't figure out how to make 'use Java;' easy.
"Little languages", on the other hand, are a somewhat different matter.
They will presumably be not-so-complex and hence won't require such deep
hooks, and some redundancy there won't be such a big problem.
> Or, perhaps a more direct question. Has anyone given any thought about how
> this multiple-input-style thingy is going to work? Can work? Should work?
That's a good question.
Another route to keep in mind is spending effort working on and with
things such as perl-byacc (and maybe even the yet-to-be-written perl-lex)
that help turn simple "languages" into perl.
--
Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dept. of Physics
Lafayette College, Easton PA 18042
