I would just like to add that this is only something very embrionary. There are a myriad ways to validate the user syntax when he/she provides input.
We're just not there yet! ;-) Cheers, -- Henry On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Henry Lenzi <henry.le...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Neil - > > First of all, I am not attempting tricks. I am doing the best I can, > the way I know how to (I will take the "clever" part as a compliment, > however). I have a few rational requirements, which I have explained. > Foremost among them is code simplicity. I saw no need so far for > parsers or macrology - I have justified this on the basis of the DSL. > As I had not been clear WRT the DSL before, I might have induced > people to make an option for macros. Also, I see a need for a part of > the program source-code to be easily customizable by users (such as, > for example, a Swedish user being able to add his/her own definitions > in simple module files, instead of tinkering with hash tables). > > What I'm sensing is that you seem to be concerned about bugs with > Racket Scheme's EVAL. Is that it? > I do not understand what the problem with EVAL is. Would you please > state clearly what the problems are? I am a reasonably sophisticated > reader. You can even point to papers. I might not read them now, but I > even have books on stuff like denotational semantics (what I don't > have is much time, sadly). > > Are you concered about using imperative style just on principle or > have you detected a specific issue? > > Doesn't the fact that definitions are provided by modules reduce > potential bugs? As I understand it, if I type, e.g., "hctz30" instead > of "hctz25" the run-time environment will bork, as that would not be a > symbol in the read table. Correct? > > Doesn't the DSL's rigid syntax reduce potential for bugs? Do you > suggest a formal parser? If so, can you explain the case why a formal > grammar would be a necessity? This is not a grammar/DSL that requires > recursion (in the Chomskyan sense). I don't see the point. Perhaps I'm > wrong. I would feel grateful if you cared to expand on that issue (if > that is an issue). > > If there are too many bugs, can you cite one, two or maybe three that > would be of concern? > > TIA, > Henry Lenzi > PS: I hope you realize that writing prescriptions by hand is a sure > way to get even more "bugs"... > > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote: >> I can see how someone might want to do tricks like this, to use the REPL as >> user interface, for tinkering, and that could be very interesting or clever. >> >> However, just to be clear to students and professionals who might stumble >> upon this thread... If I were actually doing this in production for >> pharmaceutical prescriptions/labeling/instructions, then I would be >> concerned about both program correctness and reducing potential for operator >> error to cause failures. If we were starting with those as key requirements >> for production use, then I think some of this technical discussion might be >> irrelevant to that, since the software might be implemented in a very >> different way. >> >> Neil V. >> ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
