On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> For my part, at least, I've been thinking of something either LISP-ish
> or very simple parameter setting/checking (like stuff in, say, your
> average .rc file with a little control flow thrown in) when it's
> brought up. Occasionally things FORTHish, but only when I really
> desperately need sleep. :)
Sounds like Scheme and TCL to me. Ok, it's a bit of stretch from .rc to
TCL but not too far!
> It is sort of a language design issue, but in many ways it depends on what
> sort of facilities we can provide with reasonable cost.
I really don't see why we can't provide hooks to be used by entirely
separate parsers. To my mind it's *more* expensive to try to support
other syntax's in the main parser than it is to just call out to
external per-syntax parsers. Sure, the person doing the parser for a
given language will have to write a new parser, but is there really much
hope that we're going to relieve them of that task?
> Nope, not bytecode--a syntax tree. (Though it could go the whole bytecode
> route if it wants, I suppose) Going full bytecode's not necessary.
Good point.
-sam
