Stefan, I managed to look at the paper and yeah you may be onto something. I
am certainly open to ideas. Looks promising. There needs to be a standard
way to extend the language without having to concern oneself with everything
that goes under the hood. There is certainly an interest in this. It is like
what everyone wants for Christmas.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Stefan Holdermans"
John,
It might be better to go about it in a fashion similar to how one would use Haskell to create a new language using Happy, but instead of making a full fledged language create a language that makes only minor adjustments to the official language where most of the original source code and command line options are copied verbatim with a handful of things caught such as the Richard O'Keefe newtype, a nano-language if you will. Actually I have known about this possibility for years. There is always something you would like to change about whatever language you are working with and so I have put thought into it.
What about¯syntax macros? http://people.cs.uu.nl/arthurb/data/Macros/Manual.pdf
Cheers,
Stefan