Well, one reason (maybe or maybe not the only reason, and maybe or maybe not a
sufficient reason) is that those of us who don't know C would have to learn a whole
new syntax.

Terry Cast

Aaron Isaksen wrote:

> Why not make the parser understand c-like syntax?
>
> aout = balance(x,y,z); // comment
>
> instead of assemblyesque
> aout    balance         x,y,z ; comment
>
> -Aaron

>>>>> "Terry" == Terry Cast  writes:

 Terry> Well, one reason (maybe or maybe not the only reason, and maybe or maybe not a
 Terry> sufficient reason) is that those of us who don't know C would have to learn a whole
 Terry> new syntax.

 Terry> Terry Cast

 Terry> Aaron Isaksen wrote:

 >> Why not make the parser understand c-like syntax?
 >> 
 >> aout = balance(x,y,z); // comment
 >> 
and of course that is not even C !!

 >> instead of assemblyesque
 >> aout    balance         x,y,z ; comment
 >> 
 >> -Aaron

It is the concept that matters.  There have been many attempts to
import other languages on top of Csound.  It is a trivial student
exercise to compile a C-like syntax to Csound, although the semantics
of i-, k- and a-rate is a little harder.  I set this project ever
year, but no one ever does it.

always always keep backward compatiblity to the old style.
And there could be a utility that maps the c-syntax to the old syntax.


-Aaron

On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Terry Cast wrote:

> Well, one reason (maybe or maybe not the only reason, and maybe or maybe not a
> sufficient reason) is that those of us who don't know C would have to learn a whole
> new syntax.
> 
> Terry Cast
> 
> Aaron Isaksen wrote:
> 
> > Why not make the parser understand c-like syntax?
> >
> > aout = balance(x,y,z); // comment
> >
> > instead of assemblyesque
> > aout    balance         x,y,z ; comment
> >
> > -Aaron
>