[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Guile Lua
Re: Guile Lua
Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:25:17 +0800
On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 09:37 -0500, Noah Lavine wrote:
> I sent an email about that, but it was only an idea. I thought it
> would be nice if we could work with the Clisp people. However, I can
> see some barriers to actually doing that, and I don't intend to work
> on it any time soon.
Thanks for asking that.
Anyway, we may throw it into TODO list.
I don't intend to work on it too, since Lisp is not on my hack line, I
have Scheme anyway. ;-P
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Nala Ginrut <address@hidden>
> On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 16:51 +0100, Stefan Israelsson Tampe
> > Hi,
> > > In terms of strategy, I think Guile’s focus should remain
> > on
> > > 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 :-)
> IIRC， someone raised the topic that emerge Clisp into Guile
> in 2011,
> but what's the status now?
> > Anyway to support CL I would think that we need to support
> > properties
> > on symbols, e,g. currently a symbol slot is a variable, but
> > effectively support CL I would go for
> > /Stefan
> > Den 21 nov 2012 14:26 skrev "Ludovic Courtès"
> > Hi!
> > 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
> > > lua@(guile-user)> x=1
> > Maybe you need a semicolon here?
> > > And I checked the code, it doen't use Guile inner
> > parser.
> > > Anybody point me out what is the suggested parser
> > implementation?
> > (system base lalr).
> > > And is there anyone ever evaluated the efficiency
> about the
> > non-scheme
> > > language implemented within Guile?
> > I don’t think so. Only the Scheme and Emacs Lisp
> > are
> > reasonably mature, anyway.
> > > Anyway, this wouldn't be a big problem, since
> Guile could be
> > the
> > > future dynamic language compiler collection, it
> could be
> > optimized
> > > later.
> > FWIW, I don’t quite buy the “dynamic language
> > collection”.
> > Others tried this before (Parrot), with some success
> in terms
> > of
> > supported languages, but not much beyond that.
> > In terms of strategy, I think Guile’s focus should
> > primarily on
> > Scheme variants, and ELisp. Other language
> front-ends are of
> > course
> > welcome, but we must keep an eye on what the demand
> > Thanks,
> > Ludo’.