clipka wrote:

> Maybe the problem is not so much the PostScript language he tries to
> *interpret*, but that Halks... Haks... that hassle of a language he tries to
> *implement* it in ;)

Yes. Of course. The fact that the grammer is ambiguous is only a problem 
in Haskell. All other programming languages are easily able to cope with 
this. :-P

Actually, the problem seems to be the way I've chosen to design my 
parser. (I.e., as a one-pass parser.) Now that I'm redesigning it to a 
two-pass parser, things seem to be going much more smoothly.

(You can design things wrong in *any* language.)

> BTW - I found PostScript to be one of the most-fun languages to program in...

...and you think I'm writing a PostScript interpretter because...? ;-)

> Best thing about it: It usually comes with easy-to-use graphics output :)

Depends on what you think of as "easy".

It makes it very easy to do vector graphics. It makes it rather harder 
to do anything bitmapped.

Post a reply to this message