Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[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