At 01:22 PM 12/17/00 +0000, David Grove wrote:
>Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I imagine that each supported language will likely have its own
>prefered
> > parsing strategy. Some will be perfectly lex-yacc-able. Some will be
> > more like Perl than that and would benefit from some hooks into Perl's
> > existing parser. I think we just need to provide the harness - each
> > language parser should be written in the way that makes sense for that
> > lanaguage. If the C frontend wants to call out to GCC to do its
>parsing
> > then it should be able to.
>
>Whoah. That's well beyond my understanding of the role of the creoles or
>"little languages". From my understaning, we're not wanting to parse C or
>Java or Python themselves, but Perl written C-ishly or Java-like or
>Pythonicly. My understanding of both the conversations in this area during
>the RFC discussions and Larry's speech is that we're wanting to make Perl
>look better for spoiled programmers of other languages who want or need
>additional, clearer, or specific syntax or syntactic sugar, not become a
>full-featured compiler/interpreter for those other languages.
That's not the impression I got. If we can read in real Python source,
that's keen by me.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
