|
|
|
|
|
by melloclello
3413 days ago
|
|
I've also been thinking about this for about as long (read this same article about 2-3 years ago), and came to pretty much the same conclusion. I actually think defining the grammar for turning text into a tree is likely to be the easy part, compared with building the editor itself. That said, during my research I ran across an ancient Usenet thread from 1989[1]. In it, the OP asks: > Should the language designers be making work for the language-oriented editor designers or should the language-oriented editor designers be making work for the language designers? (The thread rapidly devolves into an all out flame war about whether or not C can be considered to be context-free) Lisp feels like a language designed specifically to make a language-oriented editor designer happy, but most other popular languages fail the context-free test one way or another, thus making them difficult to define good grammars for. The problem seems to be that historically the language designers have far outnumbered the language-oriented editor designers. [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.misc/MCZmQv56--Q/O... |
|