[erlang-questions] some language changes

Vlad Dumitrescu vladdu55@REDACTED
Thu May 24 10:36:59 CEST 2007


On 5/24/07, ok <ok@REDACTED> wrote:
> Which side are you arguing?  It seems to me that in this paragraph you
> are making a very strong case for a simple fixed syntax without
> read-macros or extensive parse transforms.

I'm not arguing at all. I agree that dynamic lexing needs a very
strong use case to balance the extra complexity.

I wanted to point out that IMHO a tool that has to work with the
source code (an editor or a debugger[*]) is affected even by a
preprocessing step, not only by dynamic lexing support, and also by
parse transforms.

The requirements for a lexer+parser are different when used as a front
to a compiler than to an editor. For example, an editor has to be able
to handle incomplete code (with missing or extraneous full stops or

If the source code doesn't use nifty user-defined syntax, it can be
edited with an editor that doesn't understand user-defined syntax.
This syntax is just as optional as the use of a preprocessor, right?

[*] it's always thrilling to single step debug through code that uses
multi-line macros and extensive parse transforms :-)

best regards,

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list