[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf |
Date: |
10 Apr 2001 19:03:14 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) |
>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:
Paul> Scheme by far is the best choice for this kind of application,
Paul> because it's best at programs that generate other programs. The
Paul> other languages mentioned are not even close.
I might be wrong, but I think there is some confusion here: I never
considered moving from M4. All I'm looking for is a decent language
for the driver, i.e., rewrite autoconf.sh into something better than
sh.
- Re: Release next week?, (continued)
- Re: Release next week?, Eric Siegerman, 2001/04/10
- Re: Release next week?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/04/10
- Re: Release next week?, Bob Proulx, 2001/04/10
- Re: Release next week?, Esben Haabendal Soerensen, 2001/04/11
- Re: Release next week?, Paul Eggert, 2001/04/11
Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf, Paul Eggert, 2001/04/10
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf,
Akim Demaille <=
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf, Paul Eggert, 2001/04/10
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf, Akim Demaille, 2001/04/10
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf, Russ Allbery, 2001/04/10
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf, Akim Demaille, 2001/04/10
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf, Alexandre Oliva, 2001/04/10
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf, Akim Demaille, 2001/04/11
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf, Alexandre Oliva, 2001/04/11
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf, Akim Demaille, 2001/04/12
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf, Gary V . Vaughan, 2001/04/20
- Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf, Akim Demaille, 2001/04/23