Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
1 point by Pauan 4508 days ago | link | parent

By the way... one interesting idea that I would be open to is to change $vau so that it returns a list of two elements, the environment and the return value. In other words, rather than saying this:

  $vau Env Foo
    ... Foo ...
You'd instead say:

  $vau Env Foo
    ... [Env Foo] ...
And then it's trivial to write a wrapper that automatically returns the environment, so there's no loss in convenience. I'm not entirely convinced this is actually better than using a mutable var, but it might solve the problem (?) of assigning to an env while in the middle of an expression, like with (foo ($set! bar ...) bar)


1 point by rocketnia 4508 days ago | link

That's a more pure-FP approach to things, but what do you plan to use the returned environment for?

If you're just going to thread it into the next subexpression, then it's still hard to process this in parallel. (As I say in the other comment I just posted, "even one uncompilable expression will make it difficult to know the contents of that container, which will make it difficult to compile any of the expressions which follow that one." In this case the series of values isn't in a container, but it's still hard to follow.)

If you ignore the environment result everywhere but at the top level, and you use it as the environment for the next top-level command, that could be pretty nice.

-----

1 point by Pauan 4507 days ago | link

"That's a more pure-FP approach to things, but what do you plan to use the returned environment for?"

Well, here's how I figured it might work... a $vau evaluates its body left-to-right in its lexical environment, right? So I figured it would take the result of evaluating the top-level expression and then use that as the environment for the next top-level expression.

Like I said, I'm not really terribly worried about parallelism, at least, not that kind of parallelism. Being able to evaluate sub-expressions and stuff in parallel is cool and all, but I get the impression it'll be hard no matter what system I come up with, because of mutation and side effects. It's probably better to make concurrency explicit, like it is in Clojure.

---

"If you ignore the environment result everywhere but at the top level, and you use it as the environment for the next top-level command, that could be pretty nice."

Yeah that pretty much sums up my idea. I'm still not convinced this is actually the right way to do it, but it is interesting enough to have mildly piqued my interest.

-----