Jim Crigler <criglerj_at_acm.org> writes:
> >>>>> TMA == <tma_at_nettest.dk> writes:
>
> TMA> > My suggestion would be to look at ``slang'', which I believe
> TMA> > is some sort of C-interpreter. I don't know how good it is,
> TMA> > but it is used in the ``jed'' editor for example.
>
> TMA> These are undoubtably better languages than TCL, at least from a
> TMA> "pure" language design point-of-view, but, then the current
> TMA> configuration files will not be compatible with the new ones.
>
> TMA> Maybe it is just me that want the configuration files to be
> TMA> backward compatible... If that is not an issue, then I would use
> TMA> perl. My main reasons for this is the large base of modules for
> TMA> perl and especially perl/tk that would enable lots of new
> TMA> possiblities... An perl is multi-threaded!!!
>
> And in another message continued:
>
> TMA> As I have written elsewhere, my main reason for using TCL as the
> TMA> new configuration language, we to provide backward compability
> TMA> wit hthe current configuration files. If that isn't an issue,
> TMA> then we could use perl.... (see followup to Brian More for some
> TMA> of the reasoning for this).
>
> Perl can parse anything. What's the problem?
There are a difference here. I don't what to write a parser in perl
(or whatever language) to parse the configuration file; I want the
configuration file to be written in that language, so the file will be
interpreted directly by the interpreter (or compiler or whatever) of
the language.
Thus, if we use perl as the configuration language, the configuration
file should be written in perl!
/tonny
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_hpc.uh.edu.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_hpc.uh.edu.
Received on Fri May 01 1998 - 00:52:18 BST