Gaby,
It would seem that we have similar thoughts on how Axiom can move
forward.
Though our approaches differ, I do look forward to future discussions
`over the fence'.
Take care,
Steve
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
| >
| > | I think I have a picture now. I perceive there to be three boots. Old,
| > | New, and New-New (your improved boot).
| >
| > That picture might be in
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>
> | I think I have a picture now. I perceive there to be three boots. Old,
> | New, and New-New (your improved boot).
>
> That picture might be inaccurate -- ask Tim about all the gory details. :-)
True,
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
| I think I have a picture now. I perceive there to be three boots. Old,
| New, and New-New (your improved boot).
That picture might be inaccurate -- ask Tim about all the gory details. :-)
[...]
| > | > | Given the lack of specification, and given the
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>
> | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |
> | > Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >
> | > | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | > |
> | > | > Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL P
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > Then there is the notion of package, which really is a name space, as
| > defined by the assembly language Lisp.
|
| Packages in Lisp are not just namespaces.
Notice I said "name space", not "namespa
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > |
| > | > Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | >
| > | > | Greetings,
| > | > |
| >
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then there is the notion of package, which really is a name space, as
> defined by the assembly language Lisp.
Packages in Lisp are not just namespaces. They are objects (data)
with which one can compute with and manipulate. Of course, their
primar
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |
> | > Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >
> | > | Greetings,
> | > |
> | > | I stumbled upon a curious facility of Boot and SPAD this ev
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >> I use the syntax FOO::BAR, but not FOO'BAR, for "package-call".
| >> New Boot treats FOO'BAR as a "single" identifier.
|
| > Ok, a "package-call" is a Lisp concept. As far as I know neither Boot
| > nor SPAD admit the concept of a package.
|
| I do
Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | Greetings,
| > |
| > | I stumbled upon a curious facility of Boot and SPAD this evening. I
| > | do not recall, nor can I find, a reference to th
Hello Ralf,
The concept of a Lisp package does not translate into a SPAD or Aldor
package directly. As you know, a "package-call" in the latter case is
denoted by the $ operator. I fail to see the connection between the '
(or ::) operator in Boot/SPAD and any language concept such as SPAD
packag
I use the syntax FOO::BAR, but not FOO'BAR, for "package-call".
New Boot treats FOO'BAR as a "single" identifier.
Ok, a "package-call" is a Lisp concept. As far as I know neither Boot
nor SPAD admit the concept of a package.
I don't know much about Lisp and Boot, but Aldor defines what a pac
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Greetings,
> |
> | I stumbled upon a curious facility of Boot and SPAD this evening. I
> | do not recall, nor can I find, a reference to this in the list
> | archives or in any documentation. Please
Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Greetings,
|
| I stumbled upon a curious facility of Boot and SPAD this evening. I
| do not recall, nor can I find, a reference to this in the list
| archives or in any documentation. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Since we have at least two versi
Waldek Hebisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| NAG cdrom contains file called boot.notes describing Shoe. Another
| copy of this text was buried in the ccl sources and removed when ccl
| was removed. This text is both about language and translator. The test
| is shot and lacks many details, some
On April 7, 2007 6:53 AM Gregory Vanuxem wrote:
> ...
> (8) -> DirectProduct(3,IntegerNumberSystem)
>
>(8) DirectProduct(3,IntegerNumberSystem)
> Type: Domain
> (9) -> [1,2,3]::%
>
>>> System error:
>NIL is not of type CONS.
>
> The interpeter
Le samedi 07 avril 2007 à 02:07 -0400, Bill Page a écrit :
> On April 6, 2007 12:30 PM Gregory Vanuxem wrote:
> >
> > At the boot level I want to know if a given type is valid.
> > By type I mean a category or a domain (parametrised if
> > they must be). So for example I want to know that
> > 'Ma
On April 6, 2007 12:30 PM Gregory Vanuxem wrote:
>
> At the boot level I want to know if a given type is valid.
> By type I mean a category or a domain (parametrised if
> they must be). So for example I want to know that
> 'Matrix(Character)' and 'Fields' are invalid but not
> Matrix(Ring) and Mat
Le mardi 13 mars 2007 à 21:53 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis a écrit :
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Gregory Vanuxem wrote:
>
> | > I see your question as suggesting that we should have the translator
> | > honor the Lisp convention -- that would be the most logical thing to
> | > do. If people agree, I can a
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Gregory Vanuxem wrote:
| > I see your question as suggesting that we should have the translator
| > honor the Lisp convention -- that would be the most logical thing to
| > do. If people agree, I can add that capability to the translator --
| > and of course, I'll document it
Le mardi 13 mars 2007 à 15:22 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis a écrit :
[...]
> Yes, I'm trying to allocate some fixed amount of time per week to work
> on Axiom, and ISO C++ stuff tends to take over :-)
Ah, time is always short...
[...]
> | In the version of Axiom that I uploaded I added the
> | Mak
Gregory Vanuxem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hello Gaby,
|
| Le mardi 13 mars 2007 à 02:04 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis a écrit :
| > Howdy!
| >
| > As of revision 445, bootsys from src/boot in build-improvements
| > can be built with GCL, SBCL, CLISP. Just configure with the option
| >
| >
Hello Gaby,
Le mardi 13 mars 2007 à 02:04 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis a écrit :
> Howdy!
>
> As of revision 445, bootsys from src/boot in build-improvements
> can be built with GCL, SBCL, CLISP. Just configure with the option
>
> --with-lisp=
>
> That was an opportunity to clean up src/boo
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| >
| > Howdy!
| >
| > As of revision 445, bootsys from src/boot in build-improvements
| > can be built with GCL, SBCL, CLISP. Just configure with the option
| >
| > --with-lisp=
|
| EXCELLENT!
|
| >
--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Howdy!
>
> As of revision 445, bootsys from src/boot in build-improvements
> can be built with GCL, SBCL, CLISP. Just configure with the option
>
> --with-lisp=
EXCELLENT!
> That was an opportunity to clean up src/boot/Makefile.pamp
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Page, Bill wrote:
| Gaby,
|
| If you plan to go ahead with the proposed documentation of
| "new boot" (aka. SHOE) I would be delighted to help. Perhaps
| you have said before, but could you please explain how to
| call SHOE from the command line?
The current document script u
Gaby,
If you plan to go ahead with the proposed documentation of
"new boot" (aka. SHOE) I would be delighted to help. Perhaps
you have said before, but could you please explain how to
call SHOE from the command line?
What I would like to do is to provide a environment in the
Axiom Wiki, e.g.
\
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| first, bill burge loved puns and i remember him explaining to me
| that the latest version of boot was much better and more comfortable,
Indeed, the "new boot" is much more comfortable than "old boot", in
many respects. It has a preliminary support for (
Jugen Weiss wrote:
> > > A total rewrite in lisp with defstruct et al. of the whole system
> > > is too ambitious for the number of people contributing. Besides,
> > > for a total rewrite one should consider other alternatives as
> > > well (aldor, ...).
Bill Page wrote:
> > I still wish for this
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| BOOT requires that you insert a translation step into every
| file you process which causes you to require ADDITIONAL stanzas in
| the makefiles.
in the various incarnations of my local version interp, converting
from Boot to Lisp is handled by a generic
> | the new ASDF facility will make makefiles into one-liners.
>
> this makefile stuff does not require writing the whole interpreter in
> Lisp.
The makefile stuff and lisp are independent. But lisp now has the
proper facilities for system building that work directly. This
eliminates the need fo
On Monday 02 October 2006 11:33, Weiss, Juergen wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bill Page
> >
> > So we can eliminate Shoe and also the old interpreter parser,
> > and everything will still work properly, right?
>
> not quite. The old parser is used by the SPAD compiler,
> can be us
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| the new ASDF facility will make makefiles into one-liners.
this makefile stuff does not require writing the whole interpreter in
Lisp.
| the new UFFI facility will make external functions portable.
Boot being a syntactic sugar over Lisp, this UFFI stuf
> | lisp is the implementation language of the interpreter and has been
> | since the early 70s timeframe. coding it in lisp is not a departure.
>
> But in the light of improvements that happened since then, and
> considering we're now in 2006, it is a backward step, the benefits of
> which I fai
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Page
> So we can eliminate Shoe and also the old interpreter parser,
> and everything will still work properly, right?
not quite. The old parser is used by the SPAD compiler,
can be used as BOOT parser and as the interpreter
parser. So in principle we c
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > > A total rewrite in lisp with defstruct et al. of the whole system
| > > is too ambitious for the number of people contributing. Besides,
| > > for a total rewrite one should consider other alternatives as
| > > well (aldor, ...).
| >
| > I still wish for thi
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| extract a clean boot language and document it.
I have students who will be working on the Boot code and the
interpreter. I suspect part of their work will be to a documentation
of Boot.
-- Gaby
___
Axiom-dev
"Weiss, Juergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| About the boot ``language''. We had this discussion before: it really
| is not a new language at all, just another syntax for lisp. It has
| really
| neat features for destructuring and pattern matching. I would assume
| that
| anyone who know
> > A total rewrite in lisp with defstruct et al. of the whole system
> > is too ambitious for the number of people contributing. Besides,
> > for a total rewrite one should consider other alternatives as
> > well (aldor, ...).
>
> I still wish for this but I am afraid that is controlled by
> peop
> It sounds almost like we should take a "vote" :-), although
> open source is not organized on democratic principles as such.
> It would be really nice if we could get consensus to proceed
> in this manner.
vote? vote == running code (to use boot syntax).
extract a clean boot language and documen
On October 2, 2006 9:17 AM Juergen Weiss wrote:
> ...
> I think, at some time, there was the idea to get rid of the
> old SPAD compiler (which contains a parser for boot, spad and
> the interpreter language).
>
> Therefore a new shoe boot parser in the boot directory was
> written, and a new pars
:
+49(6131)39-26407
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Gabriel Dos Reis
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:50 AM
> To: CY
> Cc: axiom-developer@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Bo
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
On Sunday 01 October 2006 21:42, root wrote:
> thus it seems there are 2 boot languages implemented (but not defined).
> my belief (but i don't remember) is that the src/boot directory came
> into being as part of the process of switching to the new boot/shoe
> language.
Yipe. This makes the cmu
Thanks!
-- Gaby
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
> Where are the source files for the "old" boot compiler located, and
> where are the source files for the "new".
>
> I know you said "new" is meaningless, but apparently we have may have
> at least two boot compiler, one "old, and one "new". Which is which?
you believe i know the answer to t
47 matches
Mail list logo
