Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?

[Ryan Davis <address@hidden>]

On Sunday, June 15, 2003, at 11:01 PM, Robert Feldt wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Michael Vanier wrote:
>> Ruby seems to have done something like this, but (IMO) went overboard 
>> in
>> the syntax.
> Can you elaborate on why/where you think Ruby goes "overboard". Just
> curious...

Having spent the last three days reading ruby's yacc-based grammar, I 
must concur. There are a lot of small, fairly wacky, constructs in the 
syntax that are making it difficult to manipulate. I'm converting it's 
yacc-based grammar to an LL based grammar so I can write it in a simple 
RDP. I've done this w/ smalltalk before and this time it shall not be 
so easy. There isn't anything specific (except maybe the mlhs-* family 
of productions), there is just a lot of small niggly things.