On 2013-08-01 05:12, Nala Ginrut wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 12:20 +0200, Ralf Mattes wrote:
Isn't the main problem here that the OP assumes that all three
languages
have "the same syntax"? This isn't true at all. They share some basic
syntax but any "real" CL/Elisp/Scheme code will use more than this
basic
subset. And even within this limited syntactic subset, while one
syntax
will work the same syntactic consgruct will have different
_semantics_.
Yes, I'm afraid you're right, so I said pre-process is more portable.
Anyway, the project based on such an assumption will be very fragile.
I disagree. I'm quite aware of the differences and that is exactly the
reason, I'm doing this. Do have to say that originally I assumed the
syntax between Lisp and Scheme is much closer, that's right.
Anyhow, if it's of any interest, what I'm doing is: I'm developing
http://kumatux.org/ What's on the web is the old version, I've converted
about half the code to Lisp already and have made it fold both ways Lisp
and Elisp. What this means is that I can call any function in Emacs or
Clisp, and it'll automatically decide what the interpreter is and then
modify the execution of the functions and code, so that the syntactic
set is respected.
I realize now that this is completely not very feasible - to merge it
with Scheme, however would like to at least keep playing with this for
petty parts of the project. Just like like the idea of having one .lisp
file, that can be called without any preprocessing within Emacs, Clisp,
or Guile and it'll run. Currently I like playing with Clisp more, what I
like about Guile is that it's a new project, so would like to
incorporate it into the game a little too.
Anyhow, I've been experimenting with the latest recommendation of:
(with-output-to-string (lambda... and seems I'm close, however it coughs
up errors in Clisp, so still no go.
So if anyone would have alternate ideas, I'd be very much obliged.
Thanks for helping me.
--
白い熊
