From: Jeremy Tregunna <jtregunna@...>
Date: 2006-10-06T02:29:56+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: dynamically changing superclass/mixins


On 06-10-05, at 12:17, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Jeremy Tregunna wrote:
>
> one last comment, and then i'll move over to the io list, since  
> this is really
> ot (sorry everyone)...
>
>> Sure. It's really simple actually. Every bit of Io code you see  
>> (excluding
>> comments) are messages. Io is a message based language, there are no
>> keywords, and infact, the only reason comments aren't messages is  
>> because I
>> havn't completed my patch to Io's parser and lexer to transform  
>> #, // and /*
>> */ into an actual message yet.
>>
>> Considering the parse tree for the above can be a little more  
>> verbose than it needs to to demonstrate how Io is parsed, I'll  
>> draw out the parse tree as a list of lists (try not to think of it  
>> as a tree because it's not really). The code example is:
>>
>> method(a, a * a) call(5); otherStuff
>>
>> The above is transformed into several messages
>>
>> --- method --- call
>>    | a          5
>>    | a - *
>>    |     a
>>    |- otherStuff
>>
>>
>> (Apologies if your mail client made that look funny.)
>
> would the above be read something like
>
>   m = method a, a * a
>
>   m 5
>
>   otherStuff

It could be yes. Though the only reason I didn't assign the method to  
a slot (variable) beforehand was because assignment in Io is  
different. The parser translates a := b into setSlot("a", b) so I  
didn't want to confuse any more than was bound to happen by  
introducing this oddity.

> is the parse non-ambiguous as
>
>   (method a, a * a) call 5 ; otherStuff

I'm not exactly sure what you're after here. The snippit of code in  
question isn't ambiguous.

--
Jeremy Tregunna
jtregunna@blurgle.ca