clipka <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Warp, please make up your mind: Do you want a *scripting* language, or a
> *preprocessing* language?

  I want the current SDL to remain as flexible as it is now. There's no
need to make it more rigid just for the sake of it being "easier for
a converter to parse".

  Scripting languages should make the life of the users easier, not the
other way around.

> In a preprocessing language, you indeed have to worry about the commata because
> you're generating *source* code that will be parsed again.

> In a scripting language, you just loop and add elements to some data container.

  The current SDL has no data containers (except for the very rigid array),
and everything is created as SDL source. Thus it should remain as a
preprocessing language in order to make this task easier.

  The new scripting language can use a completely different approach.

> I thought you were so much in for render-time scripting with some VM; how on
> earth are you going to do that with a preprocessing language??

  I never wanted a render-time scripting VM for the *current* SDL. That's
just impossible.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message