Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!iuvax!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!jk3t+
From: jk3t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hypercard
Subject: Re: Formal Definition of Hypertalk
Message-ID: <Yb58Myy00WB6IV8oZ0@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 11 Oct 90 14:48:30 GMT
References: <11858@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Psychology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 19
In-Reply-To: <11858@pucc.Princeton.EDU>

EGNILGES@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
> I have two related questions as to (gack! neep!) Hypertalk considered
> as a (geeble!) programming language.

(Geeble!) wins the prize for weirdest adjective of the week.
 
>      1.  How's the standardization effort?

Standardization?  For an embedded language appearing on a single platform?
 
>      2.  Does anybody have a Backus-Naur and/or yacc definition of
>          the language that they can share with me.

For this (and many other fascinating details) you should run out and
get the new HyperTalk book by Winkler and Kamins (published by
Bantam).  My copy isn't handy right at this moment, so I can't give
you the ISBN.

jking