home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!iris.mincom.oz.au!marks
- From: marks@iris.mincom.oz.au (Mark Stavar)
- Newsgroups: comp.editors
- Subject: Extension Languages
- Message-ID: <3859@iris.mincom.oz.au>
- Date: 14 Dec 92 03:28:08 GMT
- Organization: Mincom, Brisbane, Australia
- Lines: 36
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
-
-
- I have a question relating to extension languages for editors:
-
- IS there any specific reason why one would choose to utilise an prefix notation
- language for extensions to an editor as opposed to infix or post-fix?
-
- Emacs utilised its own implementation of lisp, while in the PC world, Brief
- ( which has a distinctly Emacs feel about it ) uses a native macro language
- which is also implemented al la prefix notation.
-
- Does prefix notation provide some facilities for better performance for
- interpretive languages. I am particularly interested since, as both
- Emacs lisp and the Brief macro language were specifically written for
- their respective products, I would have thought that the options would
- have been available to utilise a more *natural* language interface.
- ( My definition of *natural* here being similar to other procedural
- languages that most of us write all day. e.g. C, Pascal, Fortran.
- I think you can get my drift. )
-
- This post is not implying that anything should change in the cases
- sited above. Rather, I am seeking more information as to why the
- particular choices were made, what the advantages are that they provide,
- etc.
-
- Thank you for any light you can shed
-
- marks
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Mark Stavar
- Mincom
- Juliette St
- Brisbane Q Aust
-
- Email: marks@jove.mincom.oz.au
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-