> > Has any of the decisions made on this group been put into formal
> > documentation. If not, it really needs to be. If I want to write a
> > compiler to conform to the xTalk standard, how do I go about it?
>
> The closest thing to a standard in this area is HyperCard 2.4.1.
> Though HyperTalk only supports a subset of what is available in the
> other xTalk products, what it does have is clearly the core of what
> would be in a standard. Unfortunately, that implementation, just like
> all the others, has its weaknesses and ambiguities and since it's not
> even being developed anymore the odds of being able to use it as a the
> basis of a real standard are very small (no language implementation
> has ever made the transition to being a standard unscathed ;-)
> Regards,
> Scott
I thought this group was for defining a standard for xTalk so all
compilers could compile a script if it conformed to the standard. This
seems a really futile exercise if this discussion is not made a formal
language specification.
Hmmm... so what is this list for exactly again?
If we want to standardize xTalk why don't we do it properly. Does anybody
have experience in writing language specifications?
> (no language implementation has ever made the transition to being a
standard unscathed ;-)
There would only be required elements to call your language xTalk. You
could add other stuff and still conform. Maybe a standard library of
internal functions like :put, cos, sin. And flow control if e then; end
if. Would be all you would need to conform.
Andre
