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.

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

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??

>   (Also being forced to create all the necessary commas in the loop,
> except for the last element which is never followed by a comma, will
> make the resulting SDL code to be more hackish and might not, in fact,
> make it any easier to create any kind of converter from it to a new
> language.)

Now how come you're talking about commata here??

I never mentioned them.

You're over-reacting based on pure assumptions. Please keep calm and wait for
what I'll present before going on a pre-emptive strike against it, okay?

Post a reply to this message