[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Boot, Virtual Machine

From: Stephen Wilson
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Boot, Virtual Machine
Date: 23 May 2007 00:38:03 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4

Gabriel Dos Reis <address@hidden> writes:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
> | 
> | Gaby,
> | 
> | Thanks for responding.
> | 
> | Gabriel Dos Reis <address@hidden> writes:
> | >    The Boot macro system was there before I got interested in Boot.
> | 
> | Do your have plans to expand on its current facilities?
> If people think it is something they really want, then I can give it higher
> priority. 
> So until today, nobody raised this issue -- it was only on my todo list. 

This is perfectly understandable.  

> | > Basically you define Boot macros the same way you define Boot
> | > functions except that you replace the "==" token with "==>"
> | > For example, if you can write the memeq macro as:
> | > 
> | >    memeq(e,l) ==>
> | >      MEMBER(a,l, KEYWORD::TEST, function EQ)
> | 
> | OK.  My curiosity was aroused since you claimed that Boot macros would
> | suffice in place of Lisp macros.  I was hoping for something more
> | substantial than this.
> Well, it would be much easier to tell me what *you* than me telling you 
> want.  My statement is based on the part of Axiom that was manually converted
> from Boot to Lisp.

I thought of that too.  I was being optimistic.  I was going off on
your comment to Tim that "It looks to me that you don't understand the
full power of Boot".

I figured that since you are deeply involved in developing Boot that
an `interesting' example would roll off the tip of your tongue. Sorry.

> You have the same thing in Boot.

Well, I would argue that till pigs fly. But I wont.

> But, it is not that fundamental for building an Axiom system than
> people actually sometimes  want to make it.

Of course. Its not fundamental.

I have a bias.  Im fluent in Lisp.  I see Boot as being a weak syntax
for Lisp.  But thats just me.

Given my bias, I trust you can understand why someone like myself
could view Axiom as a Lisp program.
> | [snip]
> | 
> | > At some point, I had a patch to clean up the translation but:
> | >   (1) there seems to be no use of macros in Boot codes
> | 
> | I don't code boot, so OK.  Thus, no sense in trying to define a Lisp
> | equivalent macro system.
> Well, when I look at src/interp, I see more Boot codes than Lisp codes.  So,
> my statement is based on the actual things in that directory.

I understand that the majority of code is not explicitly Lisp.  I
thought your statements were based on subtle points which I missed.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]