[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

minutes of teleconference, 16 sep



Re: OPP and esxtensibility:

I'm basically comfortable with OPP parsing and feel that it should not come in
the way of the simple extensiblity mechanism where in an author defines a new
operator \foo that takes 0 or more arguments.
In the scenario of simple substitution type semantics we have considered for
the extension mechanism, all such encodings would be essentially functional ie
I don't envision us allowing an author to define a new operator with weird
precedence rules.

Eventually, if we did feel the need to allow author defined precedence
enhancements this can be done cleanly by providing definition syntax of the
form
(define-operator :operator-name 'foo :precedence :same-as "+")
;excuse the lisp:-)
Instead of :same-as the author would also be able to say :less-than and
:greater-than (I implemented the above in Aster and it worked reasonably well
for a sufficiently large collection of hairy math. 

-- 
Best Regards,
--raman

      Adobe Systems                 Tel: 1 (408) 536 3945   (W14-129)
      Advanced Technology Group     Fax: 1 (408) 537 4042 
      (W14 129) 345 Park Avenue     Email: raman@adobe.com 
      San Jose , CA 95110 -2704     Email:  raman@cs.cornell.edu
      http://labrador.corp.adobe.com/~raman/raman.html (Adobe  Internal)
      http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/People/raman/raman.html  (Cornell)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own and in no way should be taken
as representative of my employer, Adobe Systems Inc.
____________________________________________________________


References: