Subject: Re: Heresy? Re: DSSSL WWW Enhancements From: James Clark <jjc@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 10:25:50 +0700 |
At 15:07 19/05/97 +0100, Dave Love wrote: >However, if you actually try to build such things atop vanilla Scheme >there seem to be some messy practical problems mainly due to the >lexical structure of the existing language and, partly, its >higher-order features. > >For instance: you probably don't want to make whitespace significant >and you probably want infix arithmetic. Now you need a way to square >the presence of `-' in names in the standard with its use as an >operator; you probably also need a syntax for representing the value >of the symbol formerly known as `-' to be able to use it in higher >order functions. Etc. I think Dylan is the place to look for solutions to these problems. The first version of Dylan used a Scheme-based syntax and Scheme/Lisp-ish semantics (including lexical scoping and higher-order functions). They subsequently switched to an infix syntax but didn't radically change the semantics. James DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Heresy? Re: DSSSL WWW Enhanceme, Alex Milowski | Thread | Re: Heresy? Re: DSSSL WWW Enhanceme, Gavin Nicol |
Re: Side-effect freedom (Re: When t, James Clark | Date | Re: SGML/XML syntax for DSSSL, James Clark |
Month |