Ralf, How would what you call SPAD-1 differ from BOOT? Gaby and Waldek have done a lot to make BOOT a credible language in it's own right.
Regards, Bill Page. On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote: > ... > Waldek wrote: >> 2) interpreter uses library, sometimes library uses intepreter. >> The easiest way to implement reflection in interpreter is to >> have it at library level > > Ufff. I don't agree with 'sometimes library uses intepreter'. As I > mentioned informally at the Aldor&Axiom Workshop I would > rather like to have several stages. > a) low level things that implement the language (compiler) > b) very close low level things (debugger, interpreter) > c) library level > d) user level > > a) basically makes everything ready that one can use a language > SPAD-1 > b) debugger and interpreter can be implemented in the languge > SPAD-1. Here I would allow reflection and whatever to make those > low-level things easily possible in SPAD-1. Also some very basic > library things could be implemented in SPAD-1. > c) is for writing algorithms, domains, categories connected to > mathematics. That works with SPAD-2, a language without > reflection and low-level stuff. > d) The user interaction language must be a bit different from > SPAD-2, since here reflection might be a good thing. Guessing > of types is done by the interpreter (mentioned above) on the basis > of a given library. The interpreter should not have any mathematical > knowledge. I am not sure, whether one can allow here the power > of SPAD-1. > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
