Subject: Machine readable vs. Human readable

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 20:51:29 -0800 (PST)

I think the primary purpose is to have a machine readable script.  A
lisp-style syntax or postscript-style syntax would maximize machine
readability.

On the other hand, I'm not sure we should dismiss human readability
completely.  When might be able to find a reasonable compromise where the
script is machine readable, but something that wouldn't be too hard for 
the average human to hand edit.  I think Applescript is a reasonable 
example of this sort of syntax.

---

From: Tim Showalter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 20:25:01 -0500 (EST)

> example of this sort of syntax.

I have avoided applescript to this point in my life.  Can you give a
syntactic overview of the language?

What I had in mind was prefix-oriented, with a few concessions to my
tendancy to make random typos.  I'll try to post it in the next few days,
and I'm sorry I haven't yet gotten it to a point where it is suitable for
public ridicule.

-- 
                                           Tim Showalter [email-masked]

---

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:53:09 -0800 (PST)

> syntactic overview of the language?

It reads roughly like English.  Minimal syntatic characters.  Newlines are
used as statement terminators (there's a symbol to indicate the next
line is a continuation).  Mostly infix notation.  As a programmer I always
had trouble getting the for/of/by/to/whatever prepositions right.  But
non-programmers seem to like it.