retoor/orchid
1
0
Fork 0
forked from Orchid/orchid
Code Pull Requests 1 Activity

pre-recording backup

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Lawrence Bethlenfalvy
2023-05-17 03:49:26 +01:00
parent 126494c63f
commit 330ddbe399
29 changed files with 404 additions and 195 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

77
notes/papers/report/parts/scratchpad.md
View File

@@ -19,80 +19,3 @@ The merits of pure functional code are well known, but I would like to highlight
Reactive programming is an increasingly popular paradigm for enabling systems to interact with changing state without recomputing subresults that have not been modified. It is getting popular despite the fact that enabling this kind of programming in classical languages - most notably javascript, where it appears to be the most popular - involves lots of boilerplate and complicated constructs using many many lambda functions. In a lazy language this is essentially the default.
In addition, lazy, pure code lends itself to optimization. Deforestation and TCO are implied and CTFE (or in the case of an interpreted language ahead-of-time function execution) along with a host of other optimizations are more convenient.
# Macros
Left-associative unparenthesized function calls are intuitive in the typical case of just applying functions to a limited number of arguments, but they're not very flexible. Haskell solves this problem by defining a diverse array of syntax primitives for individual use cases such as `do` blocks for monadic operations. This system is fairly rigid. In contrast, Rust enables library developers to invent their own syntax that intuitively describes the concepts the library at hand encodes. In Orchid's codebase, I defined several macros to streamline tasks like defining functions in Rust that are visible to Orchid, or translating between various intermediate representations.
## Generalized kerning
In the referenced video essay, a proof of the Turing completeness of generalized kerning is presented. The proof involves encoding a Turing machine in a string and some kerning rules. The state of the machine is next to the read-write head and all previous states are enumerated next to the tape because kerning rules are reversible. The end result looks something like this:
```
abcbcddddef|1110000110[0]a00111010011101110
```
The rules are translated into kerning rules. For a rule
> in state `a` seeing `0`: new state is `b`, write `1` and go `left`
the kerning rule would look like this (template instantiated for all possible characters):
```
$1 [ 0 ] a equals a < $1 ] b 0
```
Some global rules are also needed, also instantiated for all possible characters in the templated positions
```
$1 $2 < equals $2 < $1 unless $1 is |
| $1 < equals $1 | >
> $1 $2 equals $1 > $2 unless $2 is ]
> $1 ] equals [ $1 ]
```
What I really appreciate in this proof is how visual it is; based on this, it's easy to imagine how one would go about encoding a pushdown automaton, lambda calculus or other interesting tree-walking procedures. This is exactly why I based my preprocessor on this system.
## Namespaced tokens
Rust macros operate on the bare tokens and therefore are prone to accidental aliasing. Every other item in Rust follows a rigorous namespacing scheme, but macros break this structure, probably because macro execution happens before namespace resolution. The language doesn't suffer too much from this problem, but the relativity of namespacing
limits their potential.
Orchid's substitution rules operate on namespaced tokens. This means that the macros can hook into each other. Consider the following example, which is a modified version of a real rule included in the prelude:
in _procedural.orc_
```orchid
export do { ...$statement ; ...$rest:1 } =10_001=> (
statement (...$statement) do { ...$rest }
)
export do { ...$return } =10_000=> (...$return)
export statement (let $_name = ...$value) ...$next =10_000=> (
(\$_name. ...$next) (...$value)
)
```
in _cpsio.orc_
```orchid
import procedural::statement
export statement (cps $_name = ...$operation) ...$next =10_001=> (
(...$operation) \$_name. ...$next
)
export statement (cps ...$operation) ...$next =10_000=> (
(...$operation) (...$next)
)
```
in _main.orc_
```orchid
import procedural::(do, let, ;)
import cpsio::cps
export main := do{
cps data = readline;
let a = parse_float data * 2;
cps print (data ++ " doubled is " ++ stringify a)
}
```
Notice how, despite heavy use of macros, it's never ambiguous where a particular name is coming from. Namespacing, including import statements, is entirely unaffected by the macro system. The source of names is completely invariant.