[#83328] tcltklib and not init'ing tk — aakhter@... (Aamer Akhter)

Hello,

13 messages 2003/10/01

[#83391] mixing in class methods — "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>

Okay, probably a dumb question, but: is there any way to define

22 messages 2003/10/01
[#83392] Re: mixing in class methods — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...> 2003/10/01

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 06:02:32 +0900

[#83397] Re: mixing in class methods — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...> 2003/10/01

On Thursday, October 2, 2003, 7:08:00 AM, Ryan wrote:

[#83399] Re: mixing in class methods — "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...> 2003/10/02

On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:37:25AM +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

[#83404] Re: mixing in class methods — "Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair@...> 2003/10/02

> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:37:25AM +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

[#83416] C or C++? — "Joe Cheng" <code@...>

I'd like to start writing Ruby extensions. Does it make a difference

32 messages 2003/10/02
[#83435] Re: C or C++? — "Aleksei Guzev" <aleksei.guzev@...> 2003/10/02

[#83448] xml in Ruby — paul vudmaska <paul_vudmaska@...> 2003/10/02

The biggest problem i have with Ruby is the sleepness

[#83455] Re: xml in Ruby — Chad Fowler <chad@...> 2003/10/02

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, paul vudmaska wrote:

[#83464] Re: xml in Ruby or no xml it's just a question — paul vudmaska <paul_vudmaska@...> 2003/10/02

>>--------

[#83470] Re: xml in Ruby — paul vudmaska <paul_vudmaska@...>

>>>

15 messages 2003/10/02

[#83551] xml + ruby — paul vudmaska <paul_vudmaska@...>

>>---------

20 messages 2003/10/03
[#83562] Re: xml + ruby — Austin Ziegler <austin@...> 2003/10/03

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:11:46 +0900, paul vudmaska wrote:

[#83554] hash of hashes — Paul Argentoff <argentoff@...>

Hi all.

18 messages 2003/10/03

[#83675] fox-tool - interactive gui builder for fxruby — henon <user@...>

hi fellows,

15 messages 2003/10/05

[#83730] Re: Enumerable#inject is surprising me... — "Weirich, James" <James.Weirich@...>

> Does it surprise you?

17 messages 2003/10/06
[#83732] Re: Enumerable#inject is surprising me... — nobu.nokada@... 2003/10/07

Hi,

[#83801] Extension Language for a Text Editor — Nikolai Weibull <ruby-talk@...>

OK. So I'm going to write a text editor for my masters' thesis. The

35 messages 2003/10/08
[#83803] Re: Extension Language for a Text Editor — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...> 2003/10/08

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 05:06:32 +0900

[#83806] Re: Extension Language for a Text Editor — Nikolai Weibull <ruby-talk@...> 2003/10/08

* Ryan Pavlik <rpav@mephle.com> [Oct, 08 2003 22:30]:

[#83812] Re: Extension Language for a Text Editor — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...> 2003/10/08

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 06:09:29 +0900

[#83955] Re: Extension Language for a Text Editor — Nikolai Weibull <ruby-talk@...> 2003/10/09

* Ryan Pavlik <rpav@mephle.com> [Oct, 09 2003 09:10]:

[#84169] General Ruby Programming questions — Simon Kitching <simon@...>

21 messages 2003/10/15
[#84170] Re: General Ruby Programming questions — Florian Gross <flgr@...> 2003/10/15

Simon Kitching wrote:

[#84172] Re: General Ruby Programming questions — Simon Kitching <simon@...> 2003/10/15

Hi Florian..

[#84331] Re: Email Harvesting — Greg Vaughn <gvaughn@...>

Ryan Dlugosz said:

17 messages 2003/10/21
[#84335] Re: Email Harvesting — Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...> 2003/10/21

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Greg Vaughn wrote:

[#84343] Re: Email Harvesting — Ruben Vandeginste <Ruben.Vandeginste@...> 2003/10/22

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:35:32 +0900, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng

[#84341] Ruby-oriented Linux distro? — Hal Fulton <hal9000@...>

There's been some talk of something like this in the past.

15 messages 2003/10/22
[#84348] Re: Ruby-oriented Linux distro? — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...> 2003/10/22

On Wednesday, October 22, 2003, 6:01:16 PM, Hal wrote:

[#84351] Re: Ruby-oriented Linux distro? — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...> 2003/10/22

On Wednesday 22 Oct 2003 11:02 am, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

[#84420] Struggling with variable arguments to block — "Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair@...>

Hi -talk,

18 messages 2003/10/24
[#84428] Re: Struggling with variable arguments to block — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/10/24

Hi,

[#84604] ruby-dev summary 21637-21729 — Takaaki Tateishi <ttate@...>

Hello,

21 messages 2003/10/30
[#84787] Re: ruby-dev summary 21637-21729 — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2003/11/06

On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 07:01:28AM +0900, Takaaki Tateishi wrote:

[#84789] Re: ruby-dev summary 21637-21729 — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/06

Hi,

[#84792] Re: ruby-dev summary 21637-21729 — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2003/11/06

On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 11:17:59PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#84794] Re: ruby-dev summary 21637-21729 — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/11/06

Hi,

weird(?) thought about programming languages

From: "Albert Chou" <achou@...>
Date: 2003-10-21 23:25:39 UTC
List: ruby-talk #84334
This thought isn't necessarily about Ruby specifically, though the
occasional wish expressed here that Ruby have Lisp-like macros added to
it resonates with it.

I've been reading Paul Graham's _On Lisp_ to finally learn what all this
talk of Lisp macros is about, and I've read enough (I'm into chapter 15
so far) to understand a lot of it, generally speaking.  I spent some
time trying to understand how it might be possible to use macros to give
Lisp (or Scheme) a syntax that's easier for me to read (for instance, I
find most of the function names I've encountered in Common Lisp to be
pretty incomprehensible).  I even came across a USENET posting from
about 1991 from a guy who had done that with Scheme, but I couldn't find
any more references or a way to contact him.  Further searches of the
Web turned up another discussion about making Scheme need fewer
parentheses that finally taught me what I think is a core lesson about
language syntax:  it's difficult, if not impossible, to change the
punctuation of a programming language using its own mechanisms.  By
punctuation I mean how tokens are delimited/defined.

The discussion about making a less-parenthesized version of Scheme
concluded that you'd have to write a special-purpose reader (basically
parser, IIRC) to accomplish the task.  Thus you can write as highly
abstracted and domain-specific a language as you like on top of
Lisp/Scheme, as long as you adhere to the way these parent languages
uses parentheses, whitespace, and alphanumeric characters to define
language tokens.  Adding words (and even language constructs, in a
language that has macros) to a language's vocabulary is easy, but
redefining how to define words is impossible without stepping outside
the language.  Of course, you could write a parser for your extended
language in the language you're extending, but my point is there's no
way to make a parser for the original language work with the extended
language if you violate the parent language's punctuation rules.

Whew, just wanted to say that somewhere that someone would understand
it.  Comments welcome, but not necessary.


Al
--=20
Albert Davidson Chou, QA Manager
TeaLeaf Technology, Inc.
(415) 932-5031
AChou@TeaLeaf.com | http://www.TeaLeaf.com/

In This Thread

Prev Next