This is the mail archive of the guile@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the Guile project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Translators again


On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 09:33:55AM +0100, Jost Boekemeier wrote:
> Ian Bicking <bickiia@earlham.edu> writes:
> > On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 06:14:24PM +0100, Jost Boekemeier wrote:
> > > Ian Bicking <bickiia@earlham.edu> writes:
> > > > It seems as though the REPL may not be implemented in a standard way
> > > > in many applications.  That is, RPL are somewhat application-specific,
> > > > only the E really relates to Guile or the language.
> > > 
> > > Isn't it possible for a foreign language implementor to
> > > implement a language specific eval?
> > 
> > I guess your implementation seems too tricky to me.  It's much
> > easier for people to understand APIs that don't rename anything.
> 
> It's just that you have more than one environment to
> play with.  In the tcl environment you can define eval-string,
> in the scheme R5RS environment you must define eval with
> two arguments etc.

I guess I really don't see the problem...?  If eval can have two
arguments, then it can have two arguments.  How does this effect
evaluating a different language?

> [defining eval-string as:]
> >   (eval-string <some-input> #:language <some-language>)
> 
> In which module/environment?  

The global environment, I'd suppose.
  (eval-string <input> <environment> #:language <language>)
if you want to be explicit.  Isn't this how eval is supposed to
work?

I'm sure there are other subtleties to eval.  But adding 
#:language doesn't effect any of this -- which is why is seems
like a good solution.

-- 
Ian Bicking         / 4869 N. Talman Ave. Apt. G, Chicago, IL 60625
bickiia@earlham.edu / http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~bickiia

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]