Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote: > And XML was exactly why I asked about *programming* languages. XML > just doesn't qualify in any way I can think of as a language. I'm harumphing right along with you, Fred. :) On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Fredrik Lundh wrote: > oh, come on. in what way is "Python source code" more > expressive than XML, if you don't have anything that inter- > prets it? does the Python parser create "better" trees than > an XML parser? Python isn't just a parse tree. It has semantics. XML has no semantics. It's content-free content. :) > but back to the real issue -- the point is that XML provides a > mechanism for going from an external representation to an in- > ternal (unicode) token stream, and that mechanism is good > enough for python source code. You have a point. I'll go look at what they do. -- ?!ng
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4