[<<][staapl][>>][..]
Sat Jul 26 15:17:06 EDT 2014

DTC next?

Some structured procrastination.  The synth requires some willpower so
maybe do something that comes more natural first..

Not sure about future of DTC.  It's definitely useful to have the
inner interpreter around.  I'm not sure though about writing a
traditional Forth outer interpreter running on the target.  Might be
better to first explore this stack:
- staapl 8bit,
- calling 16bit primitives from 8bit
- foreign hosted compiler for dtc
- self-hosted

I started a dtc lang so let's see where that ended last time.

So booting that up again, there is the lexer called from the
lang/dtc.rkt module which seems to work.  It dumps a string of tokens
into the `forth-module-begin' word which I believe translates them
into a scheme form that looks like a collection of name-value bindings.

`forth-module-begin' is defined in macro-forth-sig.rkt and is a "unit
border macro" for ignorance of more appropriate name, i.e. it is
defined in terms of abstract names in the unit.  The lang/dtc.rkt
module binds this signature to dtc-forth-unit.rkt

From then on it gets a bit confusing how the units and modules work
together.  I think the idea was to keep the tie into the compiler
abstract.

The signature exports the 'macro/:' identifier, so why does compiling
": foo 123" give an error?

Let's look at the differnce between pic18/lang.rkt and pic18/dtc-lang.rkt
( The reader.rkt are basically the same, referring to the files above. )

Adding this provide to dtc-lang.rkt solves that.

(provide macro/:)

How to provide the whole lot?

I'm guessing there is no explicit way to do this, but this gets taken
care of by a (all-defined-out) somewhere because it acts as a local
instantiation?

Yes replacing it by (provide (all-defined-out)) seems to fix it.


This is what comes out of the expand form.  The forth-module-begin
form is similar but only works at module level, not in the geiser
repl.

 (syntax->datum (expand '(forth-begin |:| foo 123)))
'(begin
   (begin
     (#%app
      (#%app forth-dictionary-log)
      '((forth-word mf:reg mf:wrap-word "#f" rpn-lambda)
        (forth-word mf:reg mf:wrap-word foo rpn-lambda (macro-push 123))))
     (begin
       (define-values
        (label wrapper inline)
        (#%app mf:wrap-word '#f '#f (lambda (p) p)))
       (begin)
       (begin)
       (begin)
       (#%app mf:reg inline))
     (begin
       (define-values
        (label wrapper inline)
        (#%app
         mf:wrap-word
         'foo
         '#f
         (lambda (p) (let-values (((p) (#%app (#%app lit '123) p))) p))))
       (define-values (target/foo) label)
       (define-values (macro/foo) wrapper)
       (define-values (inline/foo) inline)
       (#%app mf:reg inline)))
   (#%app mf:compile!))
racket@dtc-test.rkt> 


So it seems straightforward, but where to I actually change the
meaning of the macros?  I.e. 'macro/+' should be something like this:

macro
: + ' _+ _compile ;
forth

So it seems that dtc-lang.rkt will have to make that translation.

So let's ride that wave for a bit see where it goes..


Looking at macro-forth-unit.rkt it seems that the trick is to delegate
to the core functons with some modification:

(wrap-functions
 (mf:compile!      compile!)
 (mf:reg           label:append!)
 (mf:wrap-macro    label:wrap-macro)
 (mf:wrap-word     label:wrap-word))

What's the second argument of the wrap words?
Location.  See compiler-unit.rkt


Patching the dtc mf: functions through to modified label: functions
seems to work, but there's another place to patch: the `macro:' form.

Macro stepper in drracket seems broken for #lang staapl/pic18/dtc
So use this manually:

(define (x n form)
  (if (zero? n)
      (syntax->datum form)
      (x (sub1 n) (expand-once form))))


So forth-module-begin needs to be changed.

From macro-forth.rkt:
(define-syntax-rule (forth-begin/init init code ...)
  (rpn-parse (forth-compile-dictionary
              (macro)     
              scat-apply  
              macro-push
              macro-push
              macro:
              init)
             code ...))


It's getting to be a bit blurry, but at least it seems that
forth-begin needs to be parameterized by the forth-begin/init
function.

So it seems that because `forth-begin/init' appears hardcoded in the
macro signature, there isn't much to be done about it?  Macros and
units don't seem to mix.

So let's push it through.  It should be possible to add a transformer
function into macro-forth^ that can then be used to postprocess
individual macros.

Step 1: eliminate forth-begin/init and expand its definition into the
signature.





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