Hi Alejo. On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:12:26 +0100 Alejandro Forero Cuervo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I decided to write a simple bc replacement using Chicken. I had the > following goals: > > 1. Have a syntax for expressions that requires very little typing. In > other words, make it fast to evaluate a lot of expressions. > > 1.1. Allow me to type inputs in multiple formats. For instance, > understand “5d3h20s” or “23:12:03” (time) and convert that to 442820. > Similarly for things like “3Gi” (3*2^50) or “3G” (3*10^9). > > 2. Have a syntax for expressions that most people would understand. > For example, I use infix binary operators and express procedure > application as “proc(arg0, ..., argn)”. This will allow me to show > the expressions I use to evaluate certain things to people that I work > with. Basically, have a syntax as “universal” as possible. > > 3. Allow me to specify the format in which I want the output. > > 4. Allow me to call functions defined in Scheme. Also allow me to > set variables and reuse their values. Pretty cool. Another usage alternative I've thought would be plugging xc.scm in csi and defining a csi toplevel command[1] (e.g., ,xc ). So you could use csi like you usually do and you'd have a ,xc command that passes expressions to xc. Something like: csi> ,xc 1+1 2 Just a random thought. [1] http://chicken.wiki.br/Using%20the%20interpreter#toplevel-commands Best wishes. Mario _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
