This is the mail archive of the guile@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Guile project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: C-like identity?


> Anyway, my project is having an identity crisis and I thought I'd ask
> a bit of advice.  First, all I can think of calling it is C-like-syntax, 
> which is true but not a good name.  It's not quite JavaScript-like
> enough to call it JavaScript->Scheme.  I don't know what it is.  I
> could call it Fred, but then no one would know anything about it by
> looking at its title.

How about calling it B or D.  Then people will guess it's something to do with 
C. (But I think one of the C predecessors was called B wasn't it?)

> Also, there's a bunch of non-C syntax things that I don't currently
> have a thoughtful opinion on, and I'd like some help on that.  I'd like
> the syntax to allow just about everything Scheme normally allows.  But
> there's no model for a lot of them in C.

You need some rationale for deciding what sort of syntax to use.  If you adopt 
the policy that this language 'D' is meant to let people boot-strap themselves 
into proper scheme programming then you should choose syntactic constructs 
that will be easy to translate to scheme.  So that someone who has learned D 
will recognise lots of scheme when s/he sees it.  So choose list(1 2 3) rather 
than list(1, 2, 3) or #{1, 2, 3} because list(1 2 3) => (list 1 2 3) is 
easiest.

Of course you could choose the opposite: to make 'D' look as little like 
scheme as possible, but I don't see why anyone would want to do that :-)

Ian
-- 
Ian Grant, Computer Lab., New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge
Phone: +44 1223 334420          Personal e-mail: iang at pobox dot com 



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]