Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sri-unix!Shebs@UTAH-20
From: Shebs%UTAH-20@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.prolog
Subject: Transport Syntax
Message-ID: <111@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Jul-84 12:31:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.111
Posted: Tue Jul 10 12:31:20 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Jul-84 07:17:58 EDT
Lines: 27

From:  Stan Shebs <Shebs@UTAH-20>

YES!  Although I don't care much for the idea of a transport syntax
parser written in C or Pascal (some of us are trying to avoid those
low-level languages altogether!).  Why not set up a DCG for the
transport syntax, then have implementors translate to the syntax for
their implementation?  A version in DEC-10 Prolog could be supplied
as an example, to be hacked as necessary.  The problem I see with a
C version is that it will be horribly gross and almost certainly
incorrect. Since Prolog is such a wonderful language, it should be
quite easy to take the transport syntax DCG, produce a parser, and
load it on top ofan implementation, and either use it directly in a
"compatibility mode", or compile code in transport syntax into the
implementation's syntax.

Aside: most Lisps can be set up to read each other's syntax with only
a small amount of work on readmacros, etc.  In fact, PSL's reader is
built using a YACC lookalike and rules for parsing s-expressions,
so *none* of the syntax is wired in.

Another aside: I don't like CGOL.  Actually, I don't care much for
Interlisp as a whole; it's a prime example of grotesque hackery
that Prologers would do well to beware of (experience has already
shown that nasty Prolog hacks are just as prevalent as in any
other language)...

-- Stan Shebs