Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf.edu!wet!kamins
From: kamins@wet.UUCP (Scot Kamins)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hypercard
Subject: Re: Formal Definition of Hypertalk
Message-ID: <1622@wet.UUCP>
Date: 12 Oct 90 21:20:56 GMT
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco
Lines: 28

Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <11858@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Sender: 
Reply-To: kamins@wet.UUCP (Scot Kamins)
Followup-To: 
B
Distribution: 
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco
Keywords: 

In article <11858@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EGNILGES@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes:
>I have two related questions as to (gack! neep!) Hypertalk considered
>as a (geeble!) programming language.
>
>
>     1.  How's the standardization effort?
>
>     2.  Does anybody have a Backus-Naur and/or yacc definition of
>         the language that they can share with me.

1.  What do you mean?  There aren't various versions of the language.
Unless you mean differences between 1.# and 2.0.  I can tell you that the
language is backward compatible with itself.
2.  The complete syntax of the language (both versions 1.# and 2.0) appears
in formal form in "Hypertalk 2.0: The Book" by Winkler (the author of the
language) and Kamins (some other guy with a Loose Quille).
:-}