Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!bsu-ucs.uucp!yang.earlham.edu!peters From: peters@yang.earlham.edu Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: scheme, standards, syntax and CFI Message-ID: <1991Jun28.113833.13094@yang.earlham.edu> Date: 28 Jun 91 16:38:32 GMT References: <4582@optima.cs.arizona.edu> Lines: 33 > Tim Barnes at barnes@cadence.com wrote: > The CAD Framework Initiative is in the process of standardizing on > Scheme as an extension language for CAD system use. In deciding to use > Scheme, it was critical to the process that we separate the language > semantics from the syntax. > > A proposal which did not state categorically that a "C-like or > shell-like" syntax overlay will be defined and made part of the standard > was shot down two months ago. Last week, after rewriting the proposal > to clearly state our committment to dealing with the syntax issue, > Scheme was approved by the Architecture Technical Subcommittee by 24 > votes to none (2 abstentions recorded). > they realize it or not) will increase dramatically. Tim, Does this mean that you are developing a C-like syntax for scheme? If so, will it be available only as a 'macro language' for CAD packages, or will it also stand alone? Could you post some of your syntax proposals for comment? (I'm very interested to see them.) I can imagine going so far in the C-like syntax direction that you won't any longer be working with an interpreted language. Are you proposing to go that far? Please tell us more. Thanks Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Suber 317/983-1214 Philosophy, Computer Science peters@earlham.bitnet Earlham College peters@yang.earlham.edu Richmond, Indiana 47374 ------------------------------------------------------------------