Re: mixing lush with clush

Hey Ralf,

Sorry for the late reply.

On 3/22/06, Ralf Juengling <[email protected]> wrote:
> Did you decide to do anything? Leon's plan sounds interesting
> but is clearly a long-term agenda. I agree with you that hacking
> up a short-term solution that would let us compile more or all of
> lush would be worthwhile. I would be interested in helping with
> such an effort. Though for the next couple of months I don't have
> enough time to work on more than a proof-of-concept kind of
> implementation.

Hmm, the problem is that I don't know how much time I have to work on
this either... The good news, however, is that I've been sick and in
my delirium I decided it'd be a good idea to write a type inferencer
for lush. I'm halfway done with that.

One problem I've run into is that there are a billion primitives in
Lush. Both the type inferencing and C compilation would be much easier
if we had a strict set on top of which everything is built. How about:

let let* lambda mlambda -- does anything else create a new lexical scope?
defparameter defvar setq
quote declare scope
cond and or not = == >
selectq while progn idx-gloop idx-eloop
eval apply cinline
* + - / div mod bitand bitor bitxor bitshl bitshr

Am I missing anything?

Thanks,
Yury


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642