Re: RPN as a grammar?
|From:||Jeffrey Henning <jeffrey@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, December 2, 1999, 14:59|
Paul Bennett <Paul.Bennett@...> comunu:
> About ... erm ... mumblemuble ago, I accidentally stumbled on the idea of
> Reverse Polish Notation as a possible basis for a conlang grammar. It was
> decided at the time that it would be difficult to model all the featuresof a
> language in this way.
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt! :-) Check out Fith:
I really need to expand on it, though, and some of your notes give me some
good ideas for doing more with it.
It's funny you mention this today, since last night in a discussion about
programming languages with some others, I wrote:
I had also programmed in Forth on the TRS-80 [my correspondent had as well].
Not having a Forth
interpreter, I wrote one myself. I love that language, and am glad to see
that it is still being used today in embedded processors. For a long time,
my favorite conproglangs were RPN langs -- mainly because they are so easy
to implement, of course. But I do find an incredible elegance in
stack-based languages, and I really wouldn't be surprised if some alien
species out there spoke a language with a stack-based grammar
(http://langmaker.com/fith.htm). I think somebody should do a loglang with
a stack-based grammar! Maybe I'll write a dialect of Dublex that does that.
http://www.LangMaker.com/ - Invent Your Own Language
email@example.com - Win $100 in the DublexGame contest!
"If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed.... Oh, wait, he