[REBOL] Re: designing dialects - was OWL
From: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 22-Mar-2002 11:43
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]On Behalf Of
> [Robbo1Mark--aol--com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:54 PM
> To: [rebol-list--rebol--com]
> Subject: [REBOL] designing dialects - was OWL
> C / etext / make-doc-pro are NOT verbose enough, they depend on character
> and symbol shortcuts to define meaning, which is great if your hacking
> at the keyboard but not so great if you are looking at the file and trying
> to interpret it's meaning and structure. For this you require to know
> these little languages like etext or make-doc-pro.
Hi, just a note. You have to decide where the source of the information will be:
Human or machine. If human, just make it simple like eText or make-doc-pro, we
don't have a problem with this kind of stuff. And if you need to work further
with this information translate it into a more machine compatible form, that's
what eText and make-doc-pro do. Well we can emitt whatever is needed... so I
don't see a difference. If you want several levels of abstraction just decide
where the source of information will be and translate to all other things. I
could even emitt a complete X86 binary application that displays the
make-doc-pro content if it's necessary... Robert
