On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 08:48 -0400, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 04:25:40PM +0800, Nala Ginrut wrote:
> > It's not a problem for Ecmascript, because its statement has to be ended
> > with semicolon. So it's easier to detect the minimum compiling unit in
> > REPL.
>
> ECMAScript us
Sorry for late reply, I was on my vocation. ;-)
On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 21:08 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Nala Ginrut skribis:
>
> > So here's my problem, there's only one reader slot defined in each
> > language type ,say, in (system base language). I have to implement just
> > one reader to
Nala Ginrut skribis:
> So here's my problem, there's only one reader slot defined in each
> language type ,say, in (system base language). I have to implement just
> one reader to fit them all:
> 1. If I provide the interactive reader in Guile, the reader becomes
> inefficient. Because each time
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 04:25:40PM +0800, Nala Ginrut wrote:
> It's not a problem for Ecmascript, because its statement has to be ended
> with semicolon. So it's easier to detect the minimum compiling unit in
> REPL.
ECMAScript uses semicolon insertion---semicolons are optional, but this can
lead
hi folks!
When I'm hacking guile-lua on Guile, I realize that some languages may
need two different reader for REPL(interactive environment) and
compiler.
For an instance, the reader in Lua REPL has little different from its
compiler reader:
--cut---
