Re: Common Lisp ontop of guile

[Nala Ginrut <nalaginrut@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1841 bytes --]

hi Stefan! Thanks for the reply!
Please let me share some ideas:

2014年5月20日 上午4:36于 "Stefan Israelsson Tampe" <stefan.itampe@gmail.com>写道：

>
> Hi, I saw on irc that nalginrut was dreaming of implementing common lisp
ontop of guile
> I have spent some time thinking on that and came to the following
conclusions.
>
> 1. Common lisp symbolic treatment and guile's syntax system does not mix
well.

I see, but if someone want to do a serious hack for CL compiler on Guile, a
simple(maybe naive) mind to translate AST of CL to tree-il and pray for the
heaven is obvious insufficient. :–)
So one has to customize the backend for CL properly.

> 2. If we want to reuse CL code we will find out that the it produces tons
of tagbodies.
> This can't be directly implemented by letrecs but delimeted continuations
is needed. And with those it is somemwhat fuzzy how well optimized the code
will become e.g. there is a risk of slow tagbodies. On the other hand doing
an implementation of CL might challange the guile hackers to produce an
even better optimizer. So tagbodies is doabale and I have code that does
them.

Yes I agreed. I have to point out that we can hardly expect Guile core
provides generic solution for various languages, which means the frontend
hacker has to consider to produce better optimizer with the tools Guile
provided (CPS,DCE,CSE...). Maybe the original tools is not suit(?), and one
has to write new one.

...

> I'm sure I've mised many points but at least these thoughts might
initiate a discussion.
>

I'm hacking on guile-lua these days, when it's done, I may have some
experiences on frontend. Lua seems relatively easier than CL situation. But
it's hard when you want it to be full compatible with the original one.

Any comments? :)

> Cheers!
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2168 bytes --]