Re: No gh_set_x()?

[Evan Prodromou]

>>>>> "ST" == Sam Tregar <address@hidden> writes:

    Me>  This is a REALLY SICK PROJECT, just in case you need someone
    Me> to tell you that. B-)

    ST> Yup.  In fact, I fully expect it to make Larry Wall physically
    ST> ill.

Well, it already worked for me. But I don't think Mr. Wall has the
capacity _left_ for nausea over bad ideas. I mean, have you seen the
"Apocalypse" language design plans for Perl 6?

What a waste -- taking a lovely little Lisp dialect and turning it
into APL.  B-)

    ST> Why would I want to do that?  I'm a Perl programmer that wants
    ST> to dabble in Guile not a masochist!  There's a popular saying
    ST> in the Perl community - "only perl can parse Perl."

Yeah, I've heard that one. Funny that Perl people are proud of this.

As confusing and irregular as Perl is, though, it's nowhere near as
complex as English. And there are -plenty- of natural language
recognitions systems written in Scheme. So my guess is that if
*anything* besides perl can parse Perl, Guile can. B-)

    Me> (Speaking of which -- is there any code available yet?)

    ST> Nope, but there will be soon.

Sorry, I meant for the Python translator. My guess is that
Mr. Bushnell will be going home from FSF Summer Camp at some point
soon and it'd be cool to see his crafts project before that happens.

Personally, I don't see what's so hard about translating Python to
Scheme -- all you should have to do is put parentheses around
everything. B-)

    ST> ctax?  I have no idea what that is!

Oh, it's the first "alternative syntax" for Guile. For some obscure
reason early designs for Guile had the idea of translating programs
written in other programming languages into Scheme, and then running
them.

ctax was (I believe) the first proof of concept for this admittedly
kinda wack idea. It was a pre-processor for Guile that had a C-like
syntax.

    ST> Ah! I see.  I said "Perl binding for Guile".  I should have
    ST> said "Guile binding for Perl".  Now I get it.  Sorry for
    ST> causing your confusion.

No, I understood the first time. I just wanted to give you another
idea.

~ESP

-- 
Evan Prodromou
address@hidden