Re: [Chicken-users] Environments as Modules

[Patrick Li]

Hi George!

I can attest that writing your own scheme interpreter is fun and educational. I've had success trying out  language design ideas with interpreters. I implemented a very simple heap-based interpreter, and tried out a similar idea to yours with no problem (but I was using environments as objects instead of modules). It seems to be only compilers that make some restrictions which make certain ideas impractical. I think you should be able to try out your idea on any simple interpreter.

Good luck!

  -Patrick

2011/3/24 George Rogers <address@hidden>

I was thinking about writing my own scheme interpreter for the heck of it. It might not make sense for some implementation strategies. What would be a good implementation strategy for this technique.

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Chust <address@hidden>
To: George Rogers <address@hidden>
Cc: Chicken-users <address@hidden>
Sent: Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:53 am
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Environments as Modules

2011/3/24 George Rogers <address@hidden>:
> What do you think about using evaluation environments as a basis for a
> module system.
> [...]

Hello,

this may look like a good idea but I suspect it isn't very suitable
for CHICKEN, because CHICKEN's evaluation environments contain no
syntax information but only runtime bindings while a module system
must deal with bindings in the transformer environment as well.

Ciao,
Thomas


-- 
When C++ is your hammer, every problem looks like your thumb.

_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users