[<<][staapl][>>][..]
Fri Aug 17 16:45:25 CEST 2007

source annotation

really.. does it make sense to NOT have the source annotation be
formal, if with a little more effort it can be?

It's sort of formal now.. Things that are not uncompilable have #f
semantics, the others are created straight from the named macro, so
should be right, or by composition from such, so should be right
because all code is syntacticly concatenable.

It sort of strikes me as odd that i can't have 'curry' or 'lift'
defined in a generic way, because quotation of data is not standard. I
could try to force it. Anyway, for 'lift' i only need base
semantics/syntax.

Wait, lift is possible if semantics is defined, but it requires that
quoted programs are always available. (even in forth macros!)




[Reply][About]
[<<][staapl][>>][..]