Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C)

przemek@rrdjazz.nist.gov (Przemek Klosowski)
1 Mar 1996 13:50:00 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[8 earlier articles]
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) WStreett@shell.monmouth.com (1996-02-23)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) hbaker@netcom.com (1996-02-23)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) k2consult@aol.com (1996-02-26)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (1996-02-27)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) anton@complang.tuwien.ac.at (1996-02-27)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) blume@zayin.cs.princeton.edu (1996-02-27)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) przemek@rrdjazz.nist.gov (1996-03-01)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1996-03-01)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) dave@occl-cam.demon.co.uk (Dave Lloyd) (1996-03-01)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (1996-03-01)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) WStreett@shell.monmouth.com (1996-03-03)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) jens.hansson@mailbox.swipnet.se (1996-03-06)
Re: Languages: The Bigger the Uglier (was: Re: Aliasing in ISO C) jens.hansson@mailbox.swipnet.se (1996-03-08)
[4 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: przemek@rrdjazz.nist.gov (Przemek Klosowski)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 1 Mar 1996 13:50:00 -0500
Organization: U. of Maryland/NIST
References: 96-02-248 96-02-304
Keywords: standards, design, comment

In article 96-02-304 k2consult@aol.com (K2 Consult) writes:


      Actually, there is at least one language I know of that implements
      plug-ins (after a fashion), and that is everybody's "favorite",
      Forth. With its notions required word sets and optional word sets, it
      achieved something very like the modern craze for "plug-ins".


How about another one---Tcl? in Tcl a construct like 'while cond
{code}' syntactically is just three strings; you can define a new
procedure fromOneUpTo that would be called as


    fromOneUpto 100 i {
        doSomethingTO $i
    }


You can also redefine builtins like 'while' (for instance, so that
'while {code}' is equivalent to 'while true {code}'). Not that I think
it is a good idea...
--
przemek klosowski (przemek@nist.gov)
Reactor Division (bldg. 235), E111
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA


(301) 975 6249
[Gad, the circle of reincarnation comes around again. Extensible languages
were trendy in the early 1970s, but faded as people realized that if you
extended them much, they became totally unreadable. -John]
--


Post a followup to this message

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