|new language syntax firstname.lastname@example.org (Aleksey Beregov) (2001-08-24)|
|Re: new language syntax email@example.com (2001-08-25)|
|Re: new language syntax firstname.lastname@example.org (2001-08-25)|
|Re: new language syntax email@example.com (2001-09-21)|
|Re: new language syntax firstname.lastname@example.org (HSM) (2001-09-25)|
|Re: new language syntax email@example.com (Ralph Boland) (2001-09-26)|
|Re: new language syntax firstname.lastname@example.org (Joachim Durchholz) (2001-10-06)|
|Re: new language syntax email@example.com (2001-10-20)|
|Re: new language syntax firstname.lastname@example.org (Chris F Clark) (2001-11-05)|
|From:||email@example.com (Tim Olson)|
|Date:||25 Aug 2001 13:25:57 -0400|
|Posted-Date:||25 Aug 2001 13:25:57 EDT|
"Aleksey Beregov" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
| I am developing the syntax for a language which should [must] be very
| suitable for working with sets, collections and other aggregate types.
| If somebody has an experience or ideas in this field send me please
| your feedback.
Note that putting all these features directly in the syntax is not
necessary; see for example how Smalltalk, with its extremely simple
syntax (5 keywords, just a few rules) has the best collection support
I've come across. Much of this is due to the ubiquitous use of Blocks
(anonymous functions) as parameters in the collection library.
aCollection do: [:each | each printOn: stream].
aCollection collect: [:each | each squared].
aCollection select: [:each | each > 7].
-- Tim Olson
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.