In article <············@early-bird.think.com> ······@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>In article <·······················@sue.cc.uregina.ca> ········@hercules.cs.uregina.ca (Bruce Guenter) writes:
>>Does there exist source code for an embeded lisp interpreter?
>
>Is Scheme close enough? Elk and SIOD are intended to be usable as
>extension languages. Here are their FAQ entries:
I had looked at scheme for a while, and discarded it because Lisp
_appeared_ much more simple for the user. In the Scheme FAQ, it shows an
example of how a simple function (fact) can be implemented in Lisp and in
Scheme. I want it the way Lisp does it (the FAQ does say that it can be
done as short as the Lisp example, but it infers that the longer method is
preferred).
> SIOD (Scheme in One Defun), free by anonymous ftp from
> nexus.yorku.ca:pub/scheme/imp/siod-v2.9-shar
> world.std.com:src/lisp/siod-v2.9-shar
> or in any comp.sources.unix archive. Runs on VAX/VMS, VAX UNIX, Sun3,
> Sun4, Amiga, Macintosh, MIPS, Cray. Small scheme implementation in C
> arranged as a set of subroutines that can be called from any main
> program for the purpose of introducing an interpreted extension
> language. Compiles to ~20K bytes of executable. Lisp calls C and C
> calls Lisp transparently. Written by George Carrette <···@paradigm.com>.
This sounds ideal, however. I'll look into it.
Being the massochist that I am, I still would like to actually write my own :-)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Bruce Guenter Address:
········@hercules.cs.uregina.ca 36 Usher St.
FidoNet: 1:140/97.0 Regina, SK, Canada
(306)761-0349 S4N 4J1
In article <·······················@sue.cc.uregina.ca> ········@hercules.cs.uregina.ca (Bruce Guenter) writes:
>I had looked at scheme for a while, and discarded it because Lisp
>_appeared_ much more simple for the user. In the Scheme FAQ, it shows an
>example of how a simple function (fact) can be implemented in Lisp and in
>Scheme. I want it the way Lisp does it (the FAQ does say that it can be
>done as short as the Lisp example, but it infers that the longer method is
>preferred).
We have changed this entry in the Scheme (and Lisp) FAQ because it
mistakenly gave the impression given above. The answer to that
question was addressing two separate issues: the differences between
Scheme and Lisp, and how an experienced Scheme/Lisp programmer might
approach the implementation. Those aspects of the experienced Scheme
implementation that made it appear more complicated than the Lisp
implementation also hold true for efficient Lisp programming. The new
answer takes a more even-handed approach. The short example is
inefficient in both languages.
--mark
In article <·······················@sue.cc.uregina.ca> ········@hercules.cs.uregina.ca (Bruce Guenter) writes:
>>Is Scheme close enough? Elk and SIOD are intended to be usable as
>>extension languages. Here are their FAQ entries:
>
>I had looked at scheme for a while, and discarded it because Lisp
>_appeared_ much more simple for the user. In the Scheme FAQ, it shows an
>example of how a simple function (fact) can be implemented in Lisp and in
>Scheme. I want it the way Lisp does it (the FAQ does say that it can be
>done as short as the Lisp example, but it infers that the longer method is
>preferred).
That FAQ entry is misleading. The simpler definition of factorial
works fine in Scheme. It's not the _language_ that's more complex.