This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Translators again
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 09:33:55AM +0100, Jost Boekemeier wrote:
> Ian Bicking <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 06:14:24PM +0100, Jost Boekemeier wrote:
> > > Ian Bicking <email@example.com> 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
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
firstname.lastname@example.org / http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~bickiia