Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!midway!tank!stephen From: stephen@estragon.uchicago.edu (Stephen P Spackman) Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: Re^2: Scheme as the only extension language Message-ID: Date: 8 Sep 90 17:44:58 GMT References: <502@pyrmania.oz> Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Distribution: comp.lang.scheme Organization: University of Chicago CILS Lines: 21 In-Reply-To: major@pta.oz.au's message of 7 Sep 90 19:38:43 GMT In article <502@pyrmania.oz> major@pta.oz.au (Major) writes: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: | ramsdell@mitre.org writes: | > Taking this even further, is there anyone who asserts that | > Scheme could be the right extension language for a TeX-like or a | > PostScript-like system? How would you integrate the text with Scheme | > code? | | Use some escape character to indicate the beginning of scheme code. Read | one symbol or list at that point and evaluate it. Discard the result if it's | nil, otherwise treat it as replacement text. You would have stuff inserted | in your text like @(date) or @(set! ux '"UNIX(TM)") or @ux. Yes, the documentation of Kyoto Common LISP is written in a language exactly like this. From memory, their escape character was \. What did they do for a TRAILING delimiter? It's all very well if the expression is paranthesised, but if I had a symbol, \ae, say, how could I use it? \aesthetics and f\oetus are unparsable. stephen p spackman stephen@estragon.uchicago.edu 312.702.3982