Category talk:Extensible syntax programming languages
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
It seems like most modern languages are extensible to some extent; consider C and C++, with their macros, and Perl, with its source filters. What qualifies a given language for this category? Ruakh 20:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)\ Why isn't Common Lisp here? -118.90.119.117 (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If Lisp is here, why not Scheme, C, C++?
In what sense is OCaml extensible except via an external tool (CamlP4)? In which case, why not include Haskell/Template Haskell, MetaML/MetaOCaml. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.79.245.87 (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
To what degree are these languages extensible, Examples: Can symbol syntax (i.e., names of data and code) be altered? Can comment syntax be altered? Can expressions and statements flow across several lines of code, and if the answer is yes, is it possible to change end of line syntax and semantics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.55.206 (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)