Dan Sugalski wrote:
Ahem. That's actually rather embarrasing. =-)At 3:13 PM -0500 12/22/02, Will Coleda wrote:I recently (re) posted my stab at tcl. I quickly realized that I was very out of date with the current development path. Here's a copy that works with (nearly) cvs latest, and switches to imcc as the output instead of directly to pasm.
Cool. As I know very little about Tcl... how much of it is implemented with this?
4 commands currently work, out of a base set of several dozen (some of which have many subcommands). Right now, set, append, puts, and exit. =-)
I had basically done the parser months ago and ran out of tuits. The parser is fairly complete, however, and handles all (I think) of tcl's syntax. (Parsing is the hard part. Defining more commands should be a simple matter of programming.)
I recently gained momentum, and with imcc, I should be able to do quite a bit more. My general plan currently is:
1. Move everything but the parser into imcc. (right now I still am manually emitting imcc when a command is done parsing, rather than simply defining all the builtin commands in imcc and call'ing it.)
2. Write two PMCs, one for scalars, one for arrays. (perhaps one for lists, but I doubt it.). I can't just use strings (well, I am now, but I can't continue much longer), and the generic scalar PMC doesn't let me do things like "2" + 1.
3. Implement the rest of the easy commands.
4. Move the parser into imcc instead of perl.
5. The rest of the hard bits.
... Though the list is subject to change.
Guess I'll have to churn another version out now that I've actually got Dan's attention. =-)
--
Will "Coke" Coleda
