Re: guile-vm 0.3

[Michael Livshin]

Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:

> Keisuke Nishida <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Certainly, we can change the format and add more information.  What
> > kind of information should be included?  I just can't decide what is
> > the best intermediate representation right now.
> 
> What about something along these lines (this is from guile-lightning,
> and in flux):

looks very very nice!

some mostly idle/academic questions:

1) I don't see any `capture-continuation'/`reinstate-continuation'
   primitives.  I assume this is because continuation primitives are
   packaged up as "known functions", right?

   if so, this is quite appropriate for the current Guile runtime
   model, but other possible models may require that these things be
   more explicit.  (it's entirely possible that I don't know what I'm
   talking about here, but hey...).

2) you do explicitly say that this IL is Scheme-oriented.  what would
   be the minimal set of additions to make it suitable as a target for
   an Elisp compiler?  for CL?  for Python?

> I'm not convinced that this is all that is needed, but it feels like a
> good start.  I want to play a bit (or two) with the Larceny compiler
> as a front end for the guile-lightning compiler.

cool!

[ btw, it looks like the next version of MzScheme is going to look
  not entirely unlike Guile + Godot.  would be interesting to play
  with that, too... ]

-- 
All ITS machines now have hardware for a new machine instruction --
SETS
Set to Self.
Please update your programs.