Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!intercon!news From: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript Subject: Re: Compiled PostScript Message-ID: <1696@intercon.com> Date: 9 Jan 90 16:38:26 GMT References: <1666@intercon.com> <1683@intercon.com> <17581@rpp386.cactus.org> <1690@intercon.com> Sender: news@intercon.com Reply-To: amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) Lines: 21 In article , gaynor@busboys.rutgers.edu (Silver) writes: > Seeing your light, I > realize that this is probably the biggest drawback in the language. The > dynamic lookup I can live with. This? Maybe not... Well, it is my biggest gripe (see, Woody, I'm not completely an Adobe cheerleader :-)). I don't find dynamic binding quite so annoying, since I'm used to it from Lisp, and it can be very useful. Also, the facts that you can (a) explicitly manipulate dynamic binding environments and (b) use the "bind" operator to look things up in the current environment stack at definition time mean that it's not as limiting as it could otherwise be (cf. the NeWS object extensions, which can be implemented in vanilla PostScript). I do agree that it is a pretty fun little language, though; much nicer than Forth, for example... Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation --