home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!news.u.washington.edu!carson.u.washington.edu!tzs
- From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
- Newsgroups: comp.editors
- Subject: Re: Extension Languages
- Message-ID: <1992Dec16.092358.15791@u.washington.edu>
- Date: 16 Dec 92 09:23:58 GMT
- Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec16.092358.15791
- References: <3859@iris.mincom.oz.au> <DAVIS.92Dec14120625@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>
- Sender: news@u.washington.edu (USENET News System)
- Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
- Lines: 16
-
- davis@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (John E. Davis) writes:
- >The reason I chose a stack based language is easy: The parsing stage is
- >simple. I did not want most of the executable devoted to the language.
-
- I've been planning on using a stack based language for my editor, too.
- This lets the basic editor (a C editing core, the interpreter, and a
- few important functions written in the stack language) be small and
- efficient.
-
- Eventually, the plan is to also provide a C compiler that compiles
- from C to the editor language, so that pepole who want to write their
- editor programs in C can do so. But this will be a separate program,
- so that people who simply want a small and efficient editor don't have
- to carry around the baggage of a C compiler or interpreter.
-
- --Tim Smith
-