|Subject:||Re: Guile Lua|
|Date:||Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:37:04 -0500|
On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 16:51 +0100, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote:IIRC， someone raised the topic that emerge Clisp into Guile in 2011,
> > In terms of strategy, I think Guile’s focus should remain primarily
> > Scheme variants, and ELisp. Other language front-ends are of course
> > welcome, but we must keep an eye on what the demand is.
> What about common lisp is scheme a lisp or is CL a scheme :-)
but what's the status now?
> Anyway to support CL I would think that we need to support placing
> on symbols, e,g. currently a symbol slot is a variable, but to
> effectively support CL I would go for
> Den 21 nov 2012 14:26 skrev "Ludovic Courtès" <address@hidden>:
> nalaginrut <address@hidden> skribis:
> > I switch to lua branch then compiled it and try, seems some
> bugs there,
> > it can't run successfully:
> > -------------------cut--------------------
> > scheme@(guile-user)> ,L lua
> > Happy hacking with Lua! To switch back, type `,L scheme'.
> > lua@(guile-user)> x=1
> Maybe you need a semicolon here?
> > And I checked the code, it doen't use Guile inner LALR
> > Anybody point me out what is the suggested parser
> (system base lalr).
> > And is there anyone ever evaluated the efficiency about the
> > language implemented within Guile?
> I don’t think so. Only the Scheme and Emacs Lisp front-end
> reasonably mature, anyway.
> > Anyway, this wouldn't be a big problem, since Guile could be
> > future dynamic language compiler collection, it could be
> > later.
> FWIW, I don’t quite buy the “dynamic language compiler
> Others tried this before (Parrot), with some success in terms
> supported languages, but not much beyond that.
> In terms of strategy, I think Guile’s focus should remain
> primarily on
> Scheme variants, and ELisp. Other language front-ends are of
> welcome, but we must keep an eye on what the demand is.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|