This is the mail archive of the firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list for the guile project.
|Index Nav:||[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]|
|Message Nav:||[Date Prev] [Date Next]||[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]|
(I guess this toping doesn't really related to guile---So Ian, reply me directly if you feel it's OK) From: Ian Bicking <email@example.com> > Can anyone see possible solutions to the type problem -- i.e., that > TCL has only one type (strings)? I think this will be a general > problem for translated languages, because the type system of one > language won't translate one-to-one to the type system of Scheme. If > it is staticly typed you can munge your way around this, but most > scripting languages aren't statically typed. If you really want to write just a "translator" from Tcl to Scheme, keeping semantics of original program, there's nothing different from ordinaly compiler problem. However, I got feeling that what you're looking for is a way to interoperate Tcl code and Scheme, right? In that case, I guess you can define some semantics by yourself: ("if it looks like a number, translate it to Scheme number" like that). STk (http://kaolin.unice.fr/STk/) has a nice integration of Tk's everything-in-string policy and Scheme. You may want to look at it. Or I might miss your point. Could you explain your project further? > (I don't know how they byte-compile > TCL -- the language seems practically designed to make it hard to > compile by convential means). Why? Of course Tcl's nasty "dynamic" nature (like consisting variable names at run-time) makes it difficult to resolve all symbol references at compile time, but you can still embed an instruction to do symbol lookup at runtime. -- Shiro KAWAI Square USA Inc. Honolulu Studio R&D division #"The most important things are the hardest things to say" --- Stephen King