RE: Extensible syntax

["Tom Locke" <address@hidden>]

> > There's Dylan, with its template based macro system, but Dylan
syntax
> > is only extensible within a fairly strict framework. It always looks
> > like Dylan. Agree?
> 
> Somewhat. You can't change the lexical grammar, and pairs like () {}
[]
> must all be balanced. However, you can certainly define DSLs that look
> quite different from the standard Dylan statement macros.

Can you define new operators for use in general Dylan statements?
Prefix/postfix/infix/mixfix?

I don't think you can because it doesn't fit with any of the ways that
Dylan notices 'aha - this is a macro'.

Right?

Tom.