Re: Extension Languages

xjam@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU (The Crossjammer)
Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:01:40 GMT

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Extension Languages marks@iris.mincom.oz.au (1992-12-14)
Re: Extension Languages xjam@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU (1992-12-14)
Re: Extension Languages davis@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (1992-12-14)
Re: Extension Languages daveg@thymus.synaptics.com (Dave Gillespie) (1992-12-15)
Re: Extension Languages drw@kronecker.mit.edu (1992-12-16)
Re: Extension Languages macrakis@osf.org (1992-12-17)
Re: Extension Languages ludemann@quintus.com (Peter Ludemann) (1992-12-17)
Re: Extension Languages macrakis@osf.org (1992-12-18)
[1 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: xjam@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU (The Crossjammer)
Organization: University of California, Berserkeley
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:01:40 GMT
Keywords: design
References: 92-12-056

marks@iris.mincom.oz.au (Mark Stavar) adds:
> I have a question relating to extension languages for editors:


> IS there any specific reason why one would choose to utilise an prefix
> notation language for extensions to an editor as opposed to infix or
> post-fix?


Most people wouldn't list this as an a priori reason but prefix notation
is *trivial* to parse. Makes life easier on the language implementor, and
depending on the community, the users.


Also typical extension languages don't have those fun filled, action
packed, programming constructs that beg for LR parsing. I would wager that
even those extension languages that have a Pascal/C heritage could be
relatively easily turned into a prefix notation and vice versa.


--
xjam@cork.Berkeley.EDU
--

Post a followup to this message

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