Re: Style vs. transformation

Reynolds, Gregg wrote:
> 
> A naive question (I'm shaky on interpreter implementation):  Why not
> specify the scripting language abstractly, as a collection of functions
> and datatypes.  So instead of stipulating, for example, that the
> addition operator is infixed '+', you stipulate that the addition
> operator (whatever it looks like) applied to numeric args sums them and
> returns a number.  

As soon as you describe the semantics of more advanced operations (like
function calls, function declarations, reference passing, etc.) you have
essentially shortened the list of languages that can be described as a
"concrete syntax" of the semantics to a single language. Languages do
not just differ in their syntaxes. The have radically different views of
how programming should be accomplished. For instance think of an issue
as simple as function call semantics. Some languages have keyword
arguments. Some have optional arguments. Some have overloading. Some
allow variable numbers of arguments. etc. etc.

Paul Prescod  - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco

[Woody Allen on Hollywood in "Annie Hall"]
Annie: "It's so clean down here."
Woody: "That's because they don't throw their garbage away. They make 
        it into television shows."


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list