[<<][staapl][>>][..]Tue Sep 9 15:10:14 CEST 2008
I'm trying to write a paper about the core idea of Staapl from the
perspective of concatenative code rewriting, and how a particular
_implementation_ of this gives a convenient applicative -> concatenative
These two blog posts try to explain the mechanism:
As side information a post that deals with the 'impedance match'
between Scheme and the concatenative macro language, based on
pattern matching and quasiquotation:
I'm wondering mostly if this makes sense.. While using the abstractions
in real life works beautifully, I have great trouble trying to explain
in a few words why this all works so well.
Basicly, it's the interplay of:
* pattern matching for destruction/construction of stack machine code
* using this for eager partial evaluation implementing rewrite rules
* macro hygiene and lexical closures
Any comment welcome.
(Best one gets a free PIC kit ;)