Re: Embeddable and Extensible Languages

George Neuner wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2005 20:57:49 -0500, "PlayDough" <petela@gocougs.wsu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >PlayDough wrote:
> >
> >... is there a language that guarantees that x1's interpreter
> >and x2's interpreter will not collide in threads?
>
> What you want is a sandbox.
>
> I second Thant Tessman 's recommendation for a Scheme based solution.
> Using syntax macros or input parsers you can give your users just
> about any input syntax you wish. Scheme limits code to interaction


You mention syntax macros and input parsers. You seem to imply that
it is possible to create my own syntax, and have it "converted" or
"interpreted" by scheme. Is that correct?


Could you expand on this a bit? Or point me to some good references?
I've digged around a bit and found things such as "define-syntax name
transformer-spec" and "let-syntax ((name transformer-spec) ...) body".
Is this along the lines you are speaking of?


> There are several embeddable Schemes. Not all are based on the R5RS
> spec (necessary if you wanted to roll your own sandboxing), but every
> implementation I have seen has some kind of extension for multiple
> environments even if it isn't based on R5RS.


I'll look more into them. Thanks for the pointer.


Pete

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.