The author talks about his work on http://www.solve-et-coagula.com/?p=8.
Lisp interpreter made with Action Script 3.
solve-et-coagula.com
Lisp interpreter made with Action Script 3.
1–10 of 11 posts
Re: Lisp interpreter made with Action Script 3.
#2touche?
Re: Lisp interpreter made with Action Script 3.
#3It doesn't seem to support closures.
User>(defun accgen (x)
(lambda (y)
(incf x y)))
ACCGEN
User>(setf foo (accgen 5))
User>(funcall foo 5)
NaN
User>(let ((bar "bar"))
(defun qux ()
(print bar)))
QUX
User>(qux)
null
User>Re: Lisp interpreter made with Action Script 3.
#4He has released the source code of the interpreter: http://www.solve-et-coagula.com/?p=9.
Re: Lisp interpreter made with Action Script 3.
#5He has released the source code of the interpreter: http://www.solve-et-coagula.com/?p=9 .
That's the first time I've looked at ActionScript code. Javascript has such an elegant object system - they should have kept it.
Re: Lisp interpreter made with Action Script 3.
#6He has released the source code of the interpreter: http://www.solve-et-coagula.com/?p=9 .
That's the first time I've looked at ActionScript code. Javascript has such an elegant object system - they should have kept it.
Could be wrong but I think you can still use the prototype syntax if you want.
Re: Lisp interpreter made with Action Script 3.
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the first time I've looked at ActionScript code. Javascript has such an elegant object system - they should have kept it.
Could be wrong but I think you can still use the prototype syntax if you want.
I know that the prototype syntax is available in as2, but I think it was removed in as3. I agree that the prototype syntax is more elegant, but I really believe Adobe was trying to appeal to Java and .NET developers.
Re: Lisp interpreter made with Action Script 3.
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could be wrong but I think you can still use the prototype syntax if you want.
I know that the prototype syntax is available in as2, but I think it was removed in as3. I agree that the prototype syntax is more elegant, but I really believe Adobe was trying to appeal to Java and .NET developers.
"but I think it was removed in as3"
Wrong. I was curious so i tested it (i've been experimenting with Flex 2). The following code outputs "blah blah":
var foo:Function = function() {}
foo.prototype.someMethod = function() { trace("blah blah"); }
new foo().someMethod();
I think the prototype syntax was kept to maintain backwards compatibility.
Re: Lisp interpreter made with Action Script 3.
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know that the prototype syntax is available in as2, but I think it was removed in as3. I agree that the prototype syntax is more elegant, but I really believe Adobe was trying to appeal to Java and .NET developers.
"but I think it was removed in as3" Wrong. I was curious so i tested it (i've been experimenting with Flex 2). The following code outputs "blah blah": var foo:Function = function() {} foo.prototype.someMethod = function() { trace("blah blah"); } new foo().someMethod(); I think the prototype syntax was kept to maintain backwards compatibility.
Thats cool, does it work with creating classes that way as well?
Re: Lisp interpreter made with Action Script 3.
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could be wrong but I think you can still use the prototype syntax if you want.
I know that the prototype syntax is available in as2, but I think it was removed in as3. I agree that the prototype syntax is more elegant, but I really believe Adobe was trying to appeal to Java and .NET developers.
[deleted]