This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com 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]

Re: object-properties


Ian Bicking wrote:
> 
> > > Should work.  Dealing with that sort of thing is just annoying, but I
> > > suppose necessary.
> >
> > It's fair game in Scheme as well. Doing
> >
> > (define op #:fg)
> > (window-style "*" op "red")
> >
> > works (and not even just accidentally).
> 
> I don't know if I like it, but it does solve certain problems.  Or,
> rather, means that the problems are already solved and I just need
> to fit the translator into the pre-existing system.  What
> procedure(s) do you use to create a keyword-object from a string?
> 

string->symbol and symbol->keyword (although in this case dash-symbol->keyword
may be more appropriate).

> >
> > I suspect some special support will be necessary for procedures that
> > take keyword and/or optional arguments. It may be helpful to look at
> > the procedures
> 
> Um... I sense something got cut off here...?

Blech, I don't know if it's me or my mail client that habitually does that.
However, I've forgotten what I was going to say there.


> [container type stuff...]
> > These cases will be rather unpleasant indeed, but I suspect you can go a long
> > way without needing it. I think I will download your package sometime soon
> > and see how far I can get on translating the default scwm config file.
> 
> The container stuff is pretty important, since containers are used
> so much.  It's not too hard with homogenous containers, but more
> complicated things I'll leave until later.  Association lists are
> probably another exception that would be nice to deal with.
> 
> In a couple days I'm going to put together another package, mostly
> containing code cleanup, but also some new primitives and stuff.
> You might want to wait for that.
> 

OK.

> > Yes, I think application extension languages are actually the most
> > important use for translators, as otherwise you always have a choice
> > of using the canonical implementation of your language of choice.
> 
> At least for intra-VHLL translation.  The Language-X->C translation
> is popular, and X->assembly is what compilers do.  But
> Tcl->Scheme isn't a big simplification.
> 

Yes, but those tend to be translations optimized for performance rather
than interoperability, i.e. a rather different beast.

 - Maciej