Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| A simpler way to tokenize and parse? costello@mitre.org (Roger L Costello) (2023-03-24) |
| Re: Lisp syntax, was A simpler way to tokenize and parse? spibou@gmail.com (Spiros Bousbouras) (2023-03-25) |
| Re: Lisp syntax, was A simpler way to tokenize and parse? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2023-03-25) |
| Re: Lisp syntax, was A simpler way to tokenize and parse? gah4@u.washington.edu (gah4) (2023-03-25) |
| Re: Lisp syntax, was A simpler way to tokenize and parse? 864-117-4973@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2023-03-26) |
| From: | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Sat, 25 Mar 2023 13:14:31 GMT |
| Organization: | Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien |
| References: | 23-03-011 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="26817"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | Lisp, lex |
| Posted-Date: | 25 Mar 2023 10:50:06 EDT |
>[[...] The original plan was that Lisp 2
>would have M expressions that looked more like a normal language but
>it's over 50 years later and they still haven't gotten around to it.
>-John]
Actually they have. Some HOPL paper (or several of them) discuss
this: There were several attempts at an Algol-like syntax, but Lisp
proprammers found that they preferred programming in S-Expressions
over the Algol-like syntax, whether it's M-Expressions, Dylan syntax,
or several other attempts.
The only language which might be considered a success at having an
Algol-like syntax in something similar to Lisp is JavaScript. Maybe
this is just because JavaScript is far enough from Lisp not just in
syntax, and there is no S-expression syntax for JavaScript, is there?
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.