develooper Front page | perl.bootstrap | Postings from July 2000

Re: LALR

From:
abigail
Date:
July 24, 2000 11:04
Subject:
Re: LALR
Message ID:
20000724180305.819.qmail@foad.org
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 01:17:26PM -0400, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 01:00:28PM -0400, kstar@chapin.edu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 12:34:19PM -0400, jdporter@min.net wrote:
> > > > That would tantamount to Perl (aka Larry, aka the Perl community) saying, 
> > > > "We were wrong, Java and Python were right."  But we weren't wrong.
> > > 
> > > Why can't perl ultimately support multiple syntax conventions?  Why
> > > can't the lexer/parser be pluggable?
> > 
> >     Why are you calling for a yacc interpreter?  The lexer/parser _could_
> > be pluggable, and this _might_ be a feature of the implementation, but why
> > would you have this be a requirement of perl6 _per se_?
> 
> Some folks seem to prefer python syntax.  I am simply repeating often
> heard suggestions that perl be able to read a python-esque syntax. 
> Maybe this is a silly idea.


While I don't really object to the idea, I don't see that much of a
benefit either. But I can see the people who are in the PR camp object.
One of the perceived problems with Perl is that the more than one way
to do it makes Perl hard and complex. Pluggable lexers/parsers takes
this to the extreme.



Abigail

nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About