[CL] Wikipedia page for CL

[Chris Menzel]

On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 01:50:47PM -0800, Rich Morin wrote:
> ...
> I am curious, however, about one aspect of the definition:
> 
>    The definition allows a variety of different syntactic forms,
>    called dialects, all expressible within a common XML-based syntax
>    and all sharing a single semantics.
> 
> This seems to mix issues of syntax and semantics.  For example, what
> if I chose to create a CL dialect, using YAML syntax.  Would that not
> be acceptable?  Please clarify...

Hi Rich.  I guess I don't see how the question suggests there is a
mixing of syntax and semantics.  The idea is that CL itself specifies
languages in general, structural terms only, leaving it up to users how
they want to implement that structure.  The semantics of CL is given
with respect to the structure itself, and hence will be inherited
directly by any dialect, as any legitimate dialect must preserve that
structure.  For this reason, I don't think it is possible to creat a CL
dialect in YAML syntax.  YAML (as far as I can tell) already *has* its
own syntax, so I don't think it makes much sense to talk about creating
a YAML *dialect* of CL, as a CL dialect must fully comport with the
syntax specified (in a general, structural way) by *CL*.  CL dialects
differ only with regard to the ways in which those structural
specifications are implemented, e.g., whether you use an upside-down 'A'
or 'forall' for the universal quantifier, or infix vs prefix notation
for binary operators.  (That said, CL does provide a degree of support
for "irregular" languages that break some of the structural rules, but I
don't think that is relevant to this discussion.)

Does that help?

-chris