CY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
| > you'll notice that the makefile in the src/boot directory explicitly | > translates using the BOOTSYS image which contains the 'shoe' parser. | > the makefile in the src/interp directory explicitly translates using | > the DEPSYS image which only contains interpreted lisp files from | > the interp directory and is NOT the same as the boot/shoe version. | | Scary. :-) | > rather than referring to them both as boot perhaps we should call | > the one in the src/boot directory 'shoe', following bill's convention. | | I suppose I should know better than to ask, but since the eventual goal is to | move the interp to Lisp anyway would a viable alternative be to "decode via | rewrite?" The more I read the interpreter code, the more I become convinced that Boot should stay. It simplifies many lots of logic; the benefits of removing it does not seem to me to outweight the cost and the result. [...] | For example | (and this might be crazy, it's just a thought) wouldn't it be possible to use | packages and the use/import/shadow concepts to handle some issues related to | things like subdomains? Funny you should mention that. I was starring at the i-*.boot files and was wondering why on the earth all knowledge had to be "hardcoded" into the interpret instead of being abstracted into a library... [...] | Eeek. Shouldn't we be specifying what the language SHOULD be, and then | re-merging the code into the new framework? yes, but we need data, i.e. what we want the language to achieve; for the moment, the existing code provide such data. I suspect now, we know what we would like to improve, what did not work, and what is simply broken idea. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
