Jean-Hugues ROBERT wrote:

> At 21:29 24/04/2004 +0900, Garbriel wrote:
>
>> il Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:27:58 +0900, Jean-Hugues ROBERT
>> >The ultimate would probably be a compiler with a customizable syntax.
>> >I mean, if I could change Smalltalk's syntax, I would use Smalltalk.
>> >I would make it look like Ruby of course ;-)
>
>
>
>
>> I believe you want the Agile Object System from the SmallScript/S#
>> guys :)
>> http://www.smallscript.com
>
>
> It takes some courage to figure out what this is about.
>
> What makes you feel this is what I want ? I have a hard time
> understanding how Smallscript could let me redefine its syntax
> to make it look like ruby's one.
>
> As a side note, besides the total lack of documentation, this is
> an impressive piece of work.
>
Agreed.

> I wonder how much work that would be to generate Smallscript
> code from Ruby's AST (using nodedump or Guy Decoux's fl_ii) ???
> The impedance mismatch between Ruby and Smallscript seems rather
> small (syntax put aside).
>
It is small but there might be licensing troubles. It was also a long 
time since it was updated...

Regards,

Robert