>>>>> "Asger" == Asger K Alstrup Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Asger> Yes, I noticed this. It might be a good starting point, but
Asger> unfortunately it's not documented much. I think I might have
Asger> to try to dig out the article he has referenced to decipher the
Asger> parser and understand it fully... It's clear that the pratt
Asger> parser is nothing more than syntactic sugar, and this might not
Asger> be what I had in mind: With syntactic sugar, we still have a
Asger> functional language, which is "disguished" in imperative
Asger> syntax.
You are right. It is not really what we are looking for. But maybe is
it easy to declare a 'for' function in this setting.
Asger> I don't know which to decide on, but I'll start out with SIOD
Asger> and see what I discover. The disadvantage of SIOD is that it's
Asger> not R4RS, contrary to Guile (mostly) and ELK.
Do you have a pointer for ELK?
Asger> The issue of a simple syntaxed language can wait a bit.
Yes.
JMarc
