clipka escreveu:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>>> Just for starters: The main difference would probably be a significant increase
>>> in the number of semicolons used.
>>   I'm not liking the sound of that. I really like being able to eg. create
>> lists of elements in a loop without having to worry about the commas.
>> If you make the current SDL "more formalized" and "consistent", you will
>> be removing a lot of its current flexibility which makes it so great.
> 
> Warp, please make up your mind: Do you want a *scripting* language, or a
> *preprocessing* language?
> 
> In a preprocessing language, you indeed have to worry about the commata because
> you're generating *source* code that will be parsed again.

If povray was to use Scheme as scripting language, there would be no 
such worries:
'(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8)

Or:
(define vec (make-vector 10))
((range 0 9) '() (lambda (i o) (vector-set! v i (* i i)) o))

v => #(0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81)

After all, Lisp syntax is very uniform.  Besides, there are quite a few 
good and small Scheme open-source interpreters out there geared for 
scripting.

Of course, while there would be no semicolons, there'd be lots of 
parentheses. ;)

and here ends Scheme advocacy.  Your turn, Andrew.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message