Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

BQN implementation #619

Open
wants to merge 47 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

BQN implementation #619

wants to merge 47 commits into from

Conversation

dancek
Copy link

@dancek dancek commented Jul 30, 2022

This is an implementation in BQN, a modern array programming language. The code is idiomatic where possible but sometimes overly verbose. Also, parts of the MAL guide forced a non-array-y implementation – but I still followed the guide.

I didn't implement optional functionality; specifically with-meta would be quite annoying to add due to all data types and every match expression needing to be changed accordingly. The language doesn't have builtin support for properties, hashmaps or such.

CBQN is currently the main implementation of the language, and it's the only one supported as documented in README. Adapting to another implementation would be very simple, though, as the _while_ 2-modifier could be implemented in a line of BQN and the terminal goodies are not strictly necessary.

@dancek
Copy link
Author

dancek commented Oct 2, 2022

Anything I can do to get this merged?

@dancek
Copy link
Author

dancek commented Oct 30, 2022

@kanaka is there anything I could do to help get this PR merged?

@dancek
Copy link
Author

dancek commented Dec 21, 2023

Still hoping to get this merged!

Copy link
Owner

@kanaka kanaka left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hello @dancek sorry for the very slow reply (I've been unable to work on this project for the past couple of years but I'm am able to again). If you're still interested in getting this merged upstream I would ask that you do the following:

  • Rebase the code onto the current HEAD
  • The recommended process has changed slightly: the eval_ast is no longer seperate from eval. It would be good if you could update to follow the new structure.
  • Add your implementation to IMPLS.yml and make sure that the CI tests all pass for your implementation.

@dancek
Copy link
Author

dancek commented Aug 12, 2024

Glad to hear from you! Thanks for the pointers. It may take me a while but I do intend to finish this PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants