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] |
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