In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
.
.
.
>Of course, the choice of Python does mean that, when we really truly
>need a "domain specific little language", we have to implement it as a
>language in its own right, rather than piggybacking it on top of a
>general-purpose language as Lisp would no doubt afford; see
><http://labs.google.com/papers/sawzall.html> for such a DSLL developed
>at Google. However, I think this tradeoff is worthwhile, and, in
>particular, does not impede scaling.
>
>
>Alex
You lost me, Alex.
I recognize that most of this thread has been far away, in the
land of the anonymity of function definitions, and so on. I've
redirected follow-ups to clp.
On this one isolated matter, though, I'm confused, Alex: I sure
think *I* have been writing DSLs as specializations of Python,
and NOT as "a language in its own right". Have I been fooling
myself, or are you making the point that Lisp-based DSLs live in
a larger syntactic universe than Python's, or ...?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
