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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > To: George Rogers <[email protected]> > Cc: Chicken-users <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:53 am > Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Environments as Modules > > 2011/3/24 George Rogers <[email protected]>: > > 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users > >
_______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
