Re: On C SEXP representation

[Andreas Rottmann]

Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:

>> Indeed. I think we have two different problems at hand, and a uniform
>> CSE syntax might not be the "right" way to solve them. 
>
> No argument here.  It'd be really nice if we could have one syntax (or
> collection (tower?) of syntaxes) that could address whichever of the
> purposes listed above that are worth pursuing, but that may or may not
> be possible, and it's probably too early to tell.
>
>> I tend to think a single notation will not play nice with both, since
>> the requirements are quite different...
>
> You may well be right.  I suppose there's the possibility that we
> might be able to have one of the syntaxes be related to (perhaps built
> on, or a super/subset of) the other.  We'll just have to see what
> makes sense.
>
I also thought about a stack of syntaxes as a possible solution. But
you're right - we should really try and see.

-- 
Andreas Rottmann         | address@hidden      | address@hidden | address@hidden
http://yi.org/rotty      | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62

Packages should build-depend on what they should build-depend.