After Parrot, what next?

Wed Apr 11 12:00:45 EDT 2001

On 10 Apr 2001 11:54:35 GMT, neelk at alum.mit.edu (Neelakantan
Krishnaswami) wrote:

>Roy Smith <roy at panix.com> wrote:
>> A bunch of us were discussing the new Parrot syntax (i.e things like 
>> "left_angle_bracket_right_angle_bracket") today and came up with a great 
>> idea for a new language syntax, which mixes the best ideas of Parrot and 
>> XML.  Instead of:
>[ snip ]
>> you'd do:
>> 
>>    <for>
>>    <controlvariable>line</controlvariable>
>>    <iteratorlist>getlines</iteratorlist>
>>    <body>
>>    <statement>
>>    <print>line</print>
>>    </statement>
>>    </body>
>>    </for>
>> 
>> So, what'ya think?
>
>You're too late.
>
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/xexpr
>
>Yes, I thought it was a joke at first too, but no joy. How can
>anyone possibly consider this a good idea? The mind boggles. :(

The fact that TeX already exists does not mean there's no need
for MathML, nor is MathML a replacement for TeX; they have 
different uses in different domains.

>Neel