Kay Schluehr <kay.schlu...@gmx.net> writes: > On 8 Jan., 16:25, J Kenneth King <ja...@agentultra.com> wrote: > >> As another poster mentioned, eventually PyPy will be done and then >> you'll get more of an "in-Python" DSL. > > May I ask why you consider it as important that the interpreter is > written in Python?
I don't think it's important for Python to have a meta-circular interpreter (though it can't hurt). > I see no connection between PyPy and syntactical > Python extensions and the latter isn't an objective of PyPy. You can > write Python extensions with virtually any Python aware parser. > M.A.Lemburg already mentioned PLY and PLY is used for Cython. Then > there is ANTLR which provides a Python grammar. I also know about two > other Python aware parsers. One of them was written by myself. Because... there is no connection to see? I never mentioned any such relation. DSL's tend to be a natural side-effect of languages which can manipulate their own expressions without extensive parsing. Creating a new parser that can generate Python AST's is certainly a valid approach (and probably the easiest one). It's not the only one. It depends on your definition of a DSL. My definition isn't satisfied with creating a parser, and so my answers reflect that. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list