Re: another take on hackers and painters

[Michael Vanier <address@hidden>]

I'm glad you brought this up.  For those of us who aren't perl gurus, can
you please explain to us in as little space as possible how the hell perl
does this kind of thing?  Is the perl lexer/parser dynamically hackable or
something?  Would it be possible to write a scheme-like syntax for perl if
one was so inclined?  If not, where are the lines drawn?

I'm wondering if perl has the same kind of power as, say, ocamlp4 gives to
ocaml, or if it's doing something completely different.

Really curious,

Mike

> From: Jasvir Nagra <jas@cs.arizona.edu>
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 08:43:22 -0700
> 
> Dan Sugalski <dan@sidhe.org> writes:
> 
> > 2) If the parser saw 1 + three in the code stream it wouldn't do the
> > math, so I'd generally assume that 1 + "three" wouldn't either.
> >
> > Both statements are language-local--I wouldn't be surprised to find a
> > language that allowed "three" either as a string constant or bareword
> > to translate to the number three. I'd expect it wouldn't be as useful
> 
> #!/usr/bin/perl -l
> 
> use Lingua::Romana::Perligata;
> 
> addementum tres tum 1 egresso scribe.
> addementum tres tum unum egresso scribe.
> addementum 3 tum 1 egresso scribe.
> 
> -- 
> Jasvir Nagra
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~jas
>