[Top] [All Lists]

Re: "extensible" grammar

1998-01-26 11:13:15
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 23:39:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <Ned(_dot_)Freed(_at_)innosoft(_dot_)com>

Once again you're confusing different things. Yes, it is true that only a
small percentage of users (I expect the number to be far lower than 5%)
will write their own scripts. But this only means that it is critically
important that the language appeal to the authors of script
generators. This is a fairly demanding audience, and if the language
looks awkard (and I think the latest proposal looks _very_ awkward) they
aren't going to like it.

Other than the control structure weirdness, what looks awkward?

I was talking about the awkward coupling between successive commands if you
elect to go the "pure parser" route. I don't
like this much but I think I can live with it, especially if it means we
have a viable consensus for moving forward.

Other than support, which is apparently gone, I like having more
flexibility in the argument order, although it may need to be cleaned up
some.  In particular, the tagged argument stuff will probably be easier to
specify in the grammar this way.  (I'm assuming tagged arguments are a good
thing; I'd like to use them for comparators and to replace lots of the
random keywords.)

I've always liked tagged arguments and would like to see a proposal that uses
them. I use them routinely when writing code in lanuages that support them and
I find the resulting code to be much more reliable and readable. And they are
certainly better than the current situation in regard to comparators.

I'll point out that it is possible to implement "if" without actually doing
it with commands so that it makes actual sense in the parser, even if the
spec specifies that all commands are control structures, and that all
commands are created equal.  I certainly intend to do it this way.

Exactly. This is why I believe your current proposal is acceptable.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>