Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >It comes down to what is meant by "little language". When I hear that >term I immediately think Scheme and TCL. They both have a small core and >extremely regular syntax. I can imagine writing a smallish parser that >spits out Perl bytecode for either. TCL is surprisingly hard to get right. The parse is trivial but typical Tcl code uses the quoting mechanisms to creatively create variable names at the various interpolation times. This kind of mess (syntax from rusty memory): proc messy {name suffix level value} { set command "$name$suffix" upvar $command [expr $level-2] set command "$command {$value}" set $command } messy foo "[$index]" 3 {expr $command+1} That "obviously" compiles to the bytecode for $foo{$index}++ ;-) -- Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.
- Re: Now, to try again... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Now, to try again... David Grove
- Re: Now, to try again... Andy Dougherty
- Re: Now, to try again... David Grove
- Re: Now, to try again... Andy Dougherty
- Re: Now, to try again... David Grove
- Re: Now, to try again... Simon Cozens
- Re: Now, to try again... Steve Fink
- Re: Now, to try again... Simon Cozens
- Re: Now, to try again... Steve Fink
- Re: Now, to try again... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: Now, to try again... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Now, to try again... Andy Dougherty
- Re: Now, to try again... David Grove
- Re: Now, to try again... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Now, to try again... Nathan Torkington
- Re: Now, to try again... Simon Cozens
- Mail problems? [simon@cozens.net: Re: Now, to t... Simon Cozens
- Re: Mail problems? [simon@cozens.net: Re: N... Ask Bjoern Hansen
- Re: Now, to try again... Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: Now, to try again... Dan Sugalski