On 2016-08-02, BartC <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 18:54, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 02:56 am, BartC wrote:
>>
>>> (And I expect that next they will eliminate languages altogether. All
>>> you need is some way of specifying a sequence of calls to library
>>> functions and sprinkling around some control statements;
>>
>> That would be called "a language".
>
> No, it wouldn't be given its own identity.
Sure it would. How else could you talk about it or differentiate it
from something else?
> And it probably couldn't be used without that specific tool.
You mean like a compiler or interpreter?
> It would be more like a file format,
So you'd have to define a combination of syntax and semantics where
you specify what elements are allowed in what order/context and what
they mean in various combinations?
It turns out there's a English word for that.
It's called a "language".
> if the details are even exposed when the format is proprietary.
>
> A traditional language exists as text and can be stored as plain
> text.
Many languages are plain text. Some aren't.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! If elected, Zippy
at pledges to each and every
gmail.com American a 55-year-old
houseboy ...
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
