[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: new language, arch, furth, etc.
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: new language, arch, furth, etc. |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:34:10 -0700 (PDT) |
> From: Daniel Skarda <address@hidden>
> > <assoc> := "{" <assoc-binding>* "}"
> > <assoc-binding> := <name> "=>" <nested-value>
> as I understand you want to make configuration language subset
> of Scheme
Well, I want the datatypes to be isomorphic to something that can be
built from Scheme types in a useful (i.e. pragmatically interoperable)
way.
I'm inclined towards a syntax that a Scheme reader can read.
I'm committed to an operational model that can be implemented nicely
in Scheme but -- really -- that's not saying much.
> (good choice, imHo :) [1]. I think that the choice of curly braces is not
a good
> one, because:
> 1) R5RS declares that:
>
> [ ] { } |
> Left and right square brackets and curly braces and vertical bar
> are reserved for possible future extensions to the language
Yeah, i'm being a little arrogant there. "Hey, I have a use for {}."
The Scheme definition is, although there are promises to fix it, a
little bit politically horked these days. So, I'll just pretend I'm
an R^*S editor/author and let the chips fall where they may.
> 2) What is so bad about association lists?
You can't explain them without cons pairs. We don't need to introduce
cons pairs. An implementation could _use_ association lists, sure --
but I regard assocs as an extensional type that describes a physical
representation while assocs are an intensional type that describes an
abstract structure.
> If configuration langauge is pure subset of Scheme, you can `read' it
> and process it in few lines of code using any Scheme implementation
> (Guile, Pika, Systas, ...). You can even `read' it using any common
> Common Lisp implementation :)
Right. I've thrown in some monkey wrenches like the "#undefined"
value -- but basically right.
> I do not think '{' '}' syntactic sugar is worth of troubles,
> incompatibility and writing special parsers (when there are already
> about 11 Scheme and 4 Lisp implementations ready for installation in
> Debian :)
> Please, KISS the configuration language :)
> 0.
yes, yes, yes. These are (important) details that are mostly below
the current level of attention of the presentation. I'm just
"glossing over" not "blowing off" some of these issues because I think
that no matter how they come out, it's not a big deal either way.
-t
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: new language, arch, furth, etc., (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: new language, arch, furth, etc., Miles Bader, 2004/07/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: new language, arch, furth, etc., Andrew Suffield, 2004/07/21
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: new language, arch, furth, etc., Miles Bader, 2004/07/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: new language, arch, furth, etc., Mikhael Goikhman, 2004/07/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: new language, arch, furth, etc., Miles Bader, 2004/07/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: new language, arch, furth, etc., Mikhael Goikhman, 2004/07/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: new language, arch, furth, etc., Charles Duffy, 2004/07/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: new language, arch, furth, etc., Mikhael Goikhman, 2004/07/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: new language, arch, furth, etc., Miles Bader, 2004/07/21
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: new language, arch, furth, etc., Daniel Skarda, 2004/07/21
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: new language, arch, furth, etc.,
Tom Lord <=
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: new language, arch, furth, etc., Tom Lord, 2004/07/20
- Prev by Date:
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Round II -- new language, arch, furth, etc.
- Next by Date:
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Round II -- new language, arch, furth, etc.
- Previous by thread:
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: new language, arch, furth, etc.
- Next by thread:
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: new language, arch, furth, etc.
- Index(es):