Re: Embeddable and Extensible Languages

"PlayDough" <petela@gocougs.wsu.edu>
25 Jan 2005 23:22:44 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[7 earlier articles]
Re: Embeddable and Extensible Languages petela@gocougs.wsu.edu (PlayDough) (2005-01-15)
Re: Embeddable and Extensible Languages kenrose@tfb.com (Ken Rose) (2005-01-15)
Re: Embeddable and Extensible Languages petela@gocougs.wsu.edu (PlayDough) (2005-01-15)
Re: Embeddable and Extensible Languages thant@acm.org (Thant Tessman) (2005-01-22)
Re: Embeddable and Extensible Languages jc.lelann@wanadoo.fr (Jean-Christophe Le Lann) (2005-01-22)
Re: Embeddable and Extensible Languages gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2005-01-24)
Re: Embeddable and Extensible Languages petela@gocougs.wsu.edu (PlayDough) (2005-01-25)
Re: Embeddable and Extensible Languages petela@gocougs.wsu.edu (PlayDough) (2005-01-25)
Re: Embeddable and Extensible Languages lex@cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) (2005-01-25)
Re: Embeddable and Extensible Languages gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2005-01-30)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "PlayDough" <petela@gocougs.wsu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 25 Jan 2005 23:22:44 -0500
Organization: http://groups.google.com
References: 05-01-04005-01-060 05-01-085
Keywords: interpreter

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



Post a followup to this message

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