|Compiler/Language eXperiment email@example.com (Axel Kittenberger) (2001-11-29)|
|Re: Compiler/Language eXperiment firstname.lastname@example.org (Tomek Zielonka) (2002-01-24)|
|Re: Compiler/Language eXperiment email@example.com (2002-01-28)|
|Re: Compiler/Language eXperiment firstname.lastname@example.org (Toon Moene) (2002-01-28)|
|Re: Compiler/Language eXperiment email@example.com (Toon Moene) (2002-01-30)|
|Re: Compiler/Language eXperiment firstname.lastname@example.org (2002-01-30)|
|From:||email@example.com (Rick Hohensee)|
|Date:||30 Jan 2002 20:42:03 -0500|
|References:||01-11-135 02-01-103 02-01-148|
|Posted-Date:||30 Jan 2002 20:42:03 EST|
Toon Moene <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:02-01-148...
> Tomek Zielonka wrote:
> [ ... snip ... ]
> > [Back in the 1970s, languages with extensible syntax led to write-only
> > code with no two programs using the same syntax. Have they solved that
> > problem? -John]
> I thought Perl was the solution to that problem ?
> "There's more than one way to do it" (TM).
Forth's syntax is basically no syntax. Words can be executed as soon
as parsed, unless the particular word does some parsing. You can at
any time extend the parser. Forth also has no lexer. Tokens are
whitespace-delimited, period. I adhere to that in my stuff. To put it
another way, punctuation is words. ( is the same class of thing as
Forth is postfix. What that really means is that numbers are verbs;
put yourself on the stack. Seen that way, that's no syntax. That's
"words occur when parsed".
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.