Re: [Axiom-developer] RE: Boot vs. Lisp

[Martin Rubey]

Dear Jürgen, Tim, *,

Oops, I didn't know about these points. Since it seems that Jürgen and Tim have
some knowledge about Boot, maybe the two of you could drink some coffee
together and decide upon a route that Axiom is to take?

This implies, that I would like to take back my comment written some minutes
ago.

I'm happy with any possibility that makes it clear what each language should be
used for, and that minimzes the amount of code in the system we want to have in
future.

Some more questions:

"Weiss, Juergen" <address@hidden> writes:

> 3. Parsing BOOT code
> 
> The parser for SPAD code is able to parse BOOT code as well -- which is not
> too surprising after point 2 above. You can build Axiom with it -- after a
> few cosmetic changes in syntax in a few more recent files written in
> BOOT. This parser is equally capable of parsing the interpreter input (modulo
> rules to be fair). The parser has certain deficiencies (for example the poor
> error messages in the compiler showing lisp code).  This parser is written
> with the help of a parser generator (meta). There is another parser for boot
> code in the src/boot directory (always wondered, why it exists). Then there
> is parser which is used for the Axiom interpreter (src/interp/pf2* files and
> others). It is capable of parsing rules.

So, is it possible to have only one parser for all code written in pile syntax?
I suppose that we will always need to have a second parser (which will maybe be
Christian Aisleitners) for the nopile syntax.

Does this parser exist already and is it working -- the above seems to imply
that it is currently not in use?

Another question:

I believe that you have posted a long time ago that you had succesfully built
Axiom with CMUCL. Is this true and is this reproduceable? I just found the
link, it is 

http://www.staff.uni-mainz.de/weiss/axiom_cmu.tgz

So, couldn't we add CMUCL as a second compiler?

Martin