RE: [Axiom-developer] B#

[Bill Page]

On March 22, 2006 8:41 PM Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> 
> Tim Daly (root) writes:
> 
> | BOOT is unrelated to B-natural.
> | BOOT is a syntactic sugar cover for common lisp.

I think it tastes whole lot better that way! :)

But your view of what constitutes "syntactic sugar" goes
way beyond mine. It doesn't look much like sugar when you
see the Lisp that the BOOT compiler generates.

> | B-natural is a typeless cover for Axiom's types.
>

Actually the original design of B# specifies a "uni-typed"
extension of the Axiom type system. I think the distinction
between being single-typed versus "typeless" is probably quite
important. Specifically it implies to me that one should
implement B# on top of the Axiom library in a language like
SPAD, or preferrably Aldor.
 
> I went through the previous discussion (including BOOT, B#,
> Aldor, Axiom) and I decided to try your idea of implementing
> B# using BOOT.  
> 

Go Gaby!

I think it would be great to see some new code written using
BOOT... and some documentation. But it is not clear to me what
advantage BOOT might provide in implementing B#.

Regards,
Bill Page.