David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Because what is the parser/lexer/tokenizer parsing? Perl? Pythonic?
>Javanese?
It is entierly possible to use one parser/lexer "engine" for multiple
languages - for example a yacc/byacc/bison LALR(1) parser is a simple
state machine - all the language
Bradley M . Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Something I though of:
>> If you're trying to write an interactive perl inputer - either a perl shell
>> or just the command prompt on the debugger it would be useful if you
>> could tell the parser that t
Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>It comes down to what is meant by "little language". When I hear that
>term I immediately think Scheme and TCL. They both have a small core and
>extremely regular syntax. I can imagine writing a smallish parser that
>spits out Perl bytecode for either.
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
>
> Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The issues of 'use Python' or 'use Pythonish' are a quite different
> issue.
> > I don't think anyone believes it ought to be easy to *write* the
> Pythonish
> > module.
>
> I do.
> That's the probl
Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> What are string functions in your view?
> >> m//
> >> s///
> >> join()
> >> substr
> >> index
> >> lc, lcfirst, ...
> >> & | ~
> >> ++
> >>
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
>
> >
> > Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> I think you misunderstand. I think it should be very easy to *use* a
> hypothetical Pythonish module. I don't expect it will be very easy to
> c
I'm wondering if we should explicitly break out the languages that
comprise perl today. That'd be at least toplevel perl, regular
expressions, and pack. Maybe tr// and the second half of s/// are
sufficiently different too. If nothing else, it would highlight the
problems in switching languages mi
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 06:11:06PM +, David Mitchell wrote:
> Since in real life the types of args are often the same, this will usually
> be a win.
I found that you have to make an effort to make them the same, else generally
enough of them aren't that decision making code outweighs speed ga
http://www.xanalys.com/software_tools/mm/articles/lang.html#emacs.lisp
Erik Naggum ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports:
I have run some tests at the U of Oslo with about 100 users who
generally agreed that Emacs had become faster in the latest Emacs
pretest. All I had done was to remove
On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 12:25:10AM -0500, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
> http://www.xanalys.com/software_tools/mm/articles/lang.html#emacs.lisp
>
>
> Erik Naggum ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) reports:
>
> I have run some tests at the U of Oslo with about 100 users who
> generally agreed that Emac
> "The new version must be better because our gazillion dollar marketing
> campaign said so. (We didn't really *fix* anything.)
The part I found interesting was the part about elimination of the message.
Perceived slowness is also important.
On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 12:40:46AM -0500, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>
> > "The new version must be better because our gazillion dollar marketing
> > campaign said so. (We didn't really *fix* anything.)
>
> The part I found interesting was the part about elimination of the message.
>
> Perceiv
12 matches
Mail list logo
