Your language isn't really Lisp, please give it a real name instead as you've already invented enough syntax for it. At a glance it looks like a cross between Haskell, ML and CL.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-28 7:39
>>5
>you've already invented enough syntax
If you call reader macros syntax
cross between Haskell, ML
I will consider such comparison as an insult. Haskell/ML symbolizes everything I hate in programming. Static math-wannabe Algol descendants with BDSM syntax.
>>6 If you call reader macros syntax
I call syntax syntax. I suppose next you'll claim your language doesn't have a grammar either, you lower-class bum.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-28 20:22
>>9
>I'm quite sure you could write a Pascal interpreter using that.
No. I couldnt, because implementing Pascal requires BNF gammars, not SEXPs.
>next you'll claim your language doesn't have a grammar either
Sorry, cant find grammars anywhere. Probably lost together with design document :-(
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-28 20:25
>>8
Whats wrong with `xs`? I've seen some schemers used `xs` and `ys` as a general name for lists.
Whenever i see ``xs'', especially when used in pattern matching like x::xs to denote an element and the rest of the list, I think of it like: the CAR is x, REST are xs (plural of ``x'').
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-29 3:06
>>19
Too bad if your code implements driving simulator and there is a bunch of `car` vars.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-29 3:12
when used in pattern matching like x::xs
If Haskell had real pattern matching, it would be possible to match things like
parseEnglish [v:!verb o:@Object as:@Adverbs] -> [[v as] o]
but no, Haskell forces you to monkey code everything, just like C/C++.
>>21
Not related to Haskell, but natural language parsing is pretty difficult as most of them evolved naturally, and to truly be able to obtain the true meaning of a sentence in an unmbiguous way requires "understanding" and "context". There's some promising statistical methods for dealing with this, but they're still quite imperfect. I think the best solution is to just aim at creating a human-level intelligence general AI and teach it human languages (such an AI could be based on a high-level model of our brain or a more low-level model such as a huge neural net that tries to model the neocortex and other related structures. Too bad such projects are still quite expensive these days).
>>24
With a simple pattern matching you still can easily parse well-formed sentences of a language, like of the form:
verb adjectives object adverbs
of course you will need separate hash tables for classifying words.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-29 4:14
>>27
Also, these simple sentences could be used to train more robust fuzzy AI, but one still have to parse them somehow, lol.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-29 6:54
>>24
>true meaning of a sentence
Try reading Bible, then explain to us "true meaning" of word "God". The truth is that there is no truth.
>>31
Apparently it was too hard for von Neumann to place program code and data in different memory, which led to all this clusterfuck of security problems and technologies designed specifically to protect corruptable stacks and heaps. I wouldn't trust this guy in anything.
>>29
That would be explaining the meaning of one definition of one word. In your example, it would be difficult as the concept is self-contradictory and I don't see how logically fallacious concepts can exist (at least if you take the entire book as true).
What I actually meant about my "true meaning" part was more about a human mind being able to resolve ambiguity in human language by integrating context. While in some cases resolving ambiguity and getting to more raw "truths" may be needed, I meant something more casual in my example.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-29 8:28
>>33
>human mind being able to resolve ambiguity in human language by integrating context
Judging from all those people, who "believe" in "God" or supreme truth or that their program doesnt have bugs, I can hardly agree with you.
>>34
The human mind is a feeble and fallible thing. It takes a certain mindset to be able to approach things in a rational manner. Some humans are just fine with living with contradictions and try to put them away in their mind, but I can't imagine it'd feel good or healthy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance ).