Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!crackers!jjmhome!smds!rh From: rh@smds.UUCP (Richard Harter) Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: extension languages can be darn small, yet still powerfull Summary: Similarity to TCL Message-ID: <180@smds.UUCP> Date: 9 Sep 90 08:03:18 GMT References: <9008220403.AA03028@schizo> Organization: SMDS Inc., Concord, MA Lines: 35 In article , peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > > The things that we dispensed with are types (everything > > is a string) and in-fix operators (we use lisp format functions). > That's the bottom line. Sounds like what you have is pretty close to > TCL. Have you looked at it? It looks like this: There is a lot of similarity between Lakota and TCL; certainly the style is similar. Lakota looks like this: procedure change_extension file old new set_list file_fields [split . (file)] point_to_end_of file_fields if not [equal? (file_fields) (old)] return mv (file) [separate . [left_part_of file_fields]].(new) $xxx <-> (xxx) [op arg ...] <-> [op arg ...] block structure by indentation rather than {} However I was in error. Everything is a list of strings rather than a string. Lists have an associated pointer into the list to give a current value. This seems to have drifted quite a ways from Scheme. Followups probably belong in comp.lang.misc. Perhaps the relevance is that that one should know Scheme before tackling extension languages! Oh yes, who is doing TCL and where can one get information on it? -- Richard Harter, Software Maintenance and Development Systems, Inc. Net address: jjmhome!smds!rh Phone: 508-369-7398 US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742 This sentence no verb. This sentence short. This signature done.