On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Waldek Hebisch wrote: | | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > | > BTW, a general approach I have been working on for some time now is to | > have a domain ParseForm, for parse forms i.e. parse trees after they | > have been property annotated, at the Spad level, and define a | > protocol to construct new entities out of ParseForms. This ParseForm | > domain is different from InputForm (which represents only expressions). | > That way people can extend the interpreter in ways unimagined by | > OpenAxiom developers, and move lot of code out of the interpreter itself. | > The tricky part, of course, is to nail down the protocol so that it is | > both useful and safe enough. | > | | I wonder how do you want to handle typechecking:
That is part of the protocol. | is ParseForm intended | to be essentially untyped representation which is passed instead of | strings to evaluator (which annotates it with types)? It is a a partially typed abstract syntax tree (like InputForm), and operations that take ParseForm are responsible to conduct the typing and return something of a domain that be used for further typing. | Or is ParseForm | (including its evaluation) intended to obey normal Spad type rules? -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-math mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-math
