Dear List, as a lurker on this list, and generally interested in the topic at hand, I am asking myself lately what are the next plans regarding idst. I am interested in seeing this project progress!
Those who have worked extensively with idst I am asking whether it wouldn't be easier to directly make the AST representable in the jolt/function/coke system directly instead of having a compiler object (model). From looking at clojure, for instance, I could imagine adding more powerful first class constructs to the lisp/schenme-like jolt would eliminate some of this differences between the compiler object and the rest. For instance concise syntax for associative arrays/maps or annotations are at least to me sort of interesting sugar. On the other hand I like the low level notion of the system, which is for reasons to not having to change to some other language (like C) when implementing system code. This on the other hand also raises the question why to have to switch languages for accessing the current AST objects... For instance the simple example: (syntax begin (lambda (node compiler) `(let () ,@[node copyFrom: '1]))) could be natively implemented via for instance scheme's define-syntax or some other form of pattern matching on the AST nodes, here I show the standard R5RS scheme implementation: (define-syntax begin (syntax-rules () ((_ first ....) (let () first ...)))) The above makes the node natively accessible via the ... symbol. My point is that this would make the system more self contained and hence easier to learn - no? I am very interested in hearing from you. Thanks in advance Jakob _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc