Re: Grammars for future languages

martelli@cadlab.it (Alex Martelli) wrote:
> I'm curious -- is this notion of non-alphanumeric notation
> as systematic syntactic sugar for well-defined alphanumeric
> notation an independent inversion of you and Ousterhout
> (the Father of Sather:-), derived from a common, older
> source, or what...? Other languages using it...?


I don't know Sather, so I didn't get it from there. Mathematica
uses it (FullForm[a+b] = Plus[a,b]), so I may have got it from
there (I'm not very systematic about keeping track of which
ideas come from which langauges).


I must find out about Sather - I've seen a few references here
to it (don't post - I'll check it out myself).


As a response to some of the other postings suggesting non-ascii
languages ...
I AGREE! It seems silly to be bound by straight ascii/text when
computers are now capable of handling other forms (other characters,
subscripts, flow diagrams etc.) ReWrite only uses ascii in its
current form because it was the easiest way to get started (text
editing tools immediately available). Maybe some later version ...


Roy Ward.
--

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.