/prog/ - MAY LISP HELPS

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 17:31

   　　　　　　　　　　∧＿∧　　　／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
    　　　　　　　　　（　´∀｀）　＜　Nyan nyan nyan nyan ni hao nyan
    　　　　　　　　／　　　　|　　　＼＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
    　　　　　　　/ 　　　　 .|　　　　　
    　　　　　　 / "⌒ヽ |.ｲ |
    　　　＿＿ |　　　.ノ | || |＿＿
    　 .　　　ノく＿＿つ∪∪　　＼
    　　　＿（（＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿_＼
    　　￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣
    　　　＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| |
    　　￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |
    　　￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |
    　　　＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| |
    　　￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 17:47

I'm writing a Lispy interpreter in C. Currently only as far as a sexp reader. I say Lispy because it's not quite a Lisp, under the hood car is an anonymous union of the different types available (currently <None> and "<List>") and cdr is actually *next. It still needs cleaning up.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 17:58

You might as well use GNU Flex + GNU Bison and let them handle the tedious parts.
Unless you want to learn to do lexing-parsing by hand, of course.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 18:16

nyan nyan nyan nyan ni hao nyan gorgeous delicious deculture

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 19:10

I love Macross

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 1:19

>>3
Usually, the tedious part is figuring out how Flex and Bison work.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 3:22

HAI PROG

would it be possible to have a generic interpreter that has a all the functionalities of common interpreted languages, and then a front end for each language

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 3:31

>>6
Yeah, especially parsing s-expressions in bare C is probably a lot less work than doing it in any specialized tool.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 3:39

>>7
It's called the Common Language runtime.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 4:01

KIMI WA DARE TO KISSU WO SURU?

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 4:12

>>10
KISS MY ANUS

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 4:41

>>9
shut up faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 8:04

>>6
There are little things that you have to learn besides the syntax of lex/yacc, but they are easy to understand and remember.
Unless, of course, you don't know shit about formal grammars and PLs in general.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 9:45

   　　　　　　　　　　∧＿∧　　　／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
    　　　　　　　　　（　´∀｀）　＜　Nyan nyan nyan nyan ni hao nyan
    　　　　　　　　／　　　　|　　　＼＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
    　　　　　　　/ 　　　　 .|　　　　　
    　　　　　　 / "⌒ヽ |.ｲ |
    　　　＿＿ |　　　.ノ | || |＿＿
    　 .　　　ノく＿＿つ∪∪　　＼
    　　　＿（（＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿_＼
    　　￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣
    　　　＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| |
    　　￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |
    　　￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |
    　　　＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| |
    　　￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 10:17

WATASHI SORETOMO ANO KO

Name: >>2 2010-09-18 10:37

>>8
Yes, my (>>2) parser is only about 40 lines.
Also, if one were to introduce a struct-like data type, how would you do it? For a struct foo { int bar; }, I've thought about:
(foo bar) - Feels Sepplesy, what with 'calling' a struct like it's a function (i.e. overloading)
(foo.bar) - Adds more grammar
(get-member-of foo 'bar) or similar - could have to involve some hash function or other (slow), unless it's done at compile-time

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 10:48

(.foo bar)

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 10:50

>>16
Traditionally the interace in scheme is make-foo, foo?, foo-bar, foo-bar-set! and is honoured by R6RS records and SRFI 99 and most define-struct definitions. The second option is used by Jscheme^[1]. The third tends to only be used for classes, and is usually considered bad style. At the end of the day, if you're reinventing Lisp you might as well pick whatever you like best.

_{--

1. http://jscheme.sourceforge.net/jscheme/doc/javadot.html}

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 11:02

>>18
erm, that should say >>17 is used by Jscheme,not the second option. foo.bar is just a variation on foo-bar if foo is the type name; if foo is the variable, you can kinda do it with identifier macros.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 12:06

>>7
It's called the Common Lisp runtime. Just write your own reader.

Name: Anonymuos 2010-09-18 13:08

>>7
.NET

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 13:09

>>20
Fuck your shitty old language. Scheme is superior.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 14:05

>>22
Says someone who never learned it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 14:05

>>22
As if Scheme isn't older than Common Lisp?
As if there's anything good about Scheme?

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 14:11

>>22
The currently in use CL was standardized in 1994, and after that development still was active as part of individual implementations and de-facto portable libraries (many of which are still maintained today, and new features are still being added). All in all, I'd say both languages are still in active development and use, although Common Lisp the language is a lot more stable than Scheme is with its base features.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 14:34

>>25
Scheme's base features are pretty stable. Good luck finding an implementation that doesn't hack on every RnRS and SRFI though.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 15:59

>>23
Eat shit.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 16:02

>>27
itrollu

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 16:43

>>26
AFAICT most of the hacks on SRFIs are just integration work.
>>25
Common Lisp the language is a lot more stable than Scheme is with its base features
Depends what you call a base feature. There is a lot of stuff common to R[456]RS which takes you back 20 years anyway.
>>24
True, Scheme is older than Common Lisp, but to suggest there is nothing good about it suggests a lot of ignorance on your part.
>>22
I agree with the sentiment, but you can't do that portably as most Scheme's don't support reader extension

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 17:18

Scheme's
I'm a fucking retard

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 18:52

>>30
wat

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 19:01

>>31
It was syntactically invalid English.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 19:10

>>32
Why didn't the BBS spit out a syntax error, then?

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 20:21

>>33
Because it's syntactically valid.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 4:06

>>34
You age sagetactically invalid

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 9:06

   　　　　　　　　　　∧＿∧　　　／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
    　　　　　　　　　（　´∀｀）　＜　Nydn nydn nydn nydn ni hao nydn
    　　　　　　　　／　　　　|　　　＼＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
    　　　　　　　/ 　　　　 .|　　　　　
    　　　　　　 / "⌒ヽ |.ｲ |
    　　　＿＿ |　　　.ノ | || |＿＿
    　 .　　　ノく＿＿つ∪∪　　＼
    　　　＿（（＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿_＼
    　　￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣
    　　　＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| |
    　　￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |
    　　￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |
    　　　＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| |
    　　￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 10:07

>>32
I don't see why. Anthropomorphism is a perfectly cromulent, and very powerful, device in the English language

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 13:46

>>37
[b]Furry detected. [/b]

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 15:27

>>37
Fuque off, you cromulent faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 15:28

   　　　　　　　∧＿∧　　　／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
    　　　　　　　　　（　´∀｀）　＜　Nydn nydn nydn nydn ni hao nydn
    　　　　　　　　／　　　　|　　　＼＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
    　　　　　　　/ 　　　　 .|　　　　　
    　　　　　　 / "⌒ヽ |.ｲ |
    　　　＿＿ |　　　.ノ | || |＿＿
    　 .　　　ノく＿＿つ∪∪　　＼
    　　　＿（（＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿_＼
    　　￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣
    　　　＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| |
    　　￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |
    　　￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |
    　　　＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| |
    　　￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |

MAY LISP HELPS

1 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 17:31

2 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 17:47

3 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 17:58

4 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 18:16

5 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 19:10

6 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 1:19

7 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 3:22

8 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 3:31

9 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 3:39

10 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 4:01

11 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 4:12

12 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 4:41

13 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 8:04

14 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 9:45

15 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 10:17

16 Name: >>2 2010-09-18 10:37

17 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 10:48

18 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 10:50

19 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 11:02

20 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 12:06

21 Name: Anonymuos 2010-09-18 13:08

22 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 13:09

23 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 14:05

24 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 14:05

25 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 14:11

26 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 14:34

27 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 15:59

28 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 16:02

29 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 16:43

30 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 17:18

31 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 18:52

32 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 19:01

33 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 19:10

34 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 20:21

35 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 4:06

36 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 9:06

37 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 10:07

38 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 13:46

39 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 15:27

40 Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 15:28

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 17:31

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 17:47

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 17:58

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 18:16

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-17 19:10

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 1:19

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 3:22

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 3:31

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 3:39

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 4:01

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 4:12

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 4:41

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 8:04

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 9:45

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 10:17

Name: >>2 2010-09-18 10:37

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 10:48

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 10:50

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 11:02

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 12:06

Name: Anonymuos 2010-09-18 13:08

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 13:09

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 14:05

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 14:05

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 14:11

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 14:34

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 15:59

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 16:02

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 16:43

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 17:18

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 18:52

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 19:01

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 19:10

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-18 20:21

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 4:06

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 9:06

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 10:07

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 13:46

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 15:27

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 15:28