[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Sam Hunting scripsit:
> This is the LISP-like approach that others have mentioned?
Yes. The true Lisper is known for rarely or never invoking functions by
name, but only using application-specific macros. (I exaggerate.)
> It should be stressed that such a document was in fact 100% valid
> SGML, even though it looked like (and was) also a little language. It
> didn't need to be transformed into order to be valid, that is.
Well, but only because SGML had a transformation engine built into the
front end. In the same sense, ISO C includes #define and #include, but
*conceptually* they are at a different level from the main syntax description.
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
"One time I called in to the central system and started working on a big
thick 'sed' and 'awk' heavy duty data bashing script. One of the geologists
came by, looked over my shoulder and said 'Oh, that happens to me too.
Try hanging up and phoning in again.'" --Beverly Erlebacher
|
