Re: [Axiom-developer] Boot

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

CY <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

| > you'll notice that the makefile in the src/boot directory explicitly
| > translates using the BOOTSYS image which contains the 'shoe' parser.
| > the makefile in the src/interp directory explicitly translates using
| > the DEPSYS image which only contains interpreted lisp files from
| > the interp directory and is NOT the same as the boot/shoe version.
| 
| Scary.

:-)

| > rather than referring to them both as boot perhaps we should call
| > the one in the src/boot directory 'shoe', following bill's convention.
| 
| I suppose I should know better than to ask, but since the eventual goal is to 
| move the interp to Lisp anyway would a viable alternative be to "decode via 
| rewrite?" 

The more I read the interpreter code, the more I become convinced that 
Boot should stay.  It simplifies many lots of logic; the benefits of
removing it does not seem to me to outweight the cost and the result.

[...]

|                                                                For example 
| (and this might be crazy, it's just a thought) wouldn't it be possible to use 
| packages and the use/import/shadow concepts to handle some issues related to 
| things like subdomains? 

Funny you should mention that.  I was starring at the i-*.boot files
and was wondering why on the earth all knowledge had to be "hardcoded"
into the interpret instead of being abstracted into a library...

[...]

| Eeek.  Shouldn't we be specifying what the language SHOULD be, and then 
| re-merging the code into the new framework?

yes, but we need data, i.e. what we want the language to achieve; for
the moment, the existing code provide such data.  I suspect now, we
know what we would like to improve, what did not work, and what is
simply broken idea.

-- Gaby