How to handle and access and interact with object members host code
hi Sorry if this too obvious, but I don't understand how gambit handles objects from the hosts backend. For example: if one would like to construct a 'Node' library for the JS backend, how would you do that? The whole node api seems to be object oriented. But also the Python standard libaries (batteries) are layed out class based. You had to do something like (define o (new Lib)) (o.print "hello") This looks wrong. What am I missing? Regards ben
Afficher les réponses par date
At the Scheme level, you can express the OO style in various ways. Here are 2 that come to mind: 1) Your “new” operator could return a closure which receives as a first parameter the name of the method to be called. So you could: (define o (new Lib)) (o print: "hello") or (define .print '.print) (o .print "hello") 2) You could make .print a function that receives as a first parameter the object on which the method applies. For example: (define .print (lambda (self text) …)) (define o (new Lib)) (.print o "hello") You can of course use macros to automate these styles. Marc
On Dec 7, 2015, at 8:31 AM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
hi Sorry if this too obvious, but I don't understand how gambit handles objects from the hosts backend.
For example: if one would like to construct a 'Node' library for the JS backend, how would you do that? The whole node api seems to be object oriented. But also the Python standard libaries (batteries) are layed out class based. You had to do something like
(define o (new Lib)) (o.print "hello")
This looks wrong. What am I missing?
Regards ben _______________________________________________ Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
Just to be a little more precise. Expressing OO style in Scheme was not my primary concern here. The problem I see is that the all of the host languages (except the original C backend) access their library functions through an OO interface. It's not like the library approach in scheme were you can directly use a function after you imported it. That means if you want to use a function from a host language you first have to create an object. But now what is this object in Scheme and what can it do? In the best case, it would check the member calls at compile time. In the worst case it add runtime cost in the backend. But thats just stuff I was thinking about. What I wanted to know in the first place is how I should accessing backing library functions / ffing that are "hidden" behind OO apis. How is this done? On Mon, Dec 7, 2015, at 05:13 PM, Marc Feeley wrote:
At the Scheme level, you can express the OO style in various ways. Here are 2 that come to mind:
1) Your “new” operator could return a closure which receives as a first parameter the name of the method to be called. So you could:
(define o (new Lib)) (o print: "hello")
or
(define .print '.print) (o .print "hello")
2) You could make .print a function that receives as a first parameter the object on which the method applies. For example:
(define .print (lambda (self text) …)) (define o (new Lib)) (.print o "hello")
You can of course use macros to automate these styles.
Marc
On Dec 7, 2015, at 8:31 AM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
hi Sorry if this too obvious, but I don't understand how gambit handles objects from the hosts backend.
For example: if one would like to construct a 'Node' library for the JS backend, how would you do that? The whole node api seems to be object oriented. But also the Python standard libaries (batteries) are layed out class based. You had to do something like
(define o (new Lib)) (o.print "hello")
This looks wrong. What am I missing?
Regards ben _______________________________________________ Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
Something like (define abcproperty-accessor (native-lambda (native-object) int "___result = ___arg1.abcproperty;")) (define o (new Object)) (define abcproperty (abcproperty-accessor o)) ? 2015-12-08 0:44 GMT+08:00 ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com>:
Just to be a little more precise. Expressing OO style in Scheme was not my primary concern here. The problem I see is that the all of the host languages (except the original C backend) access their library functions through an OO interface. It's not like the library approach in scheme were you can directly use a function after you imported it.
That means if you want to use a function from a host language you first have to create an object. But now what is this object in Scheme and what can it do? In the best case, it would check the member calls at compile time. In the worst case it add runtime cost in the backend.
But thats just stuff I was thinking about.
What I wanted to know in the first place is how I should accessing backing library functions / ffing that are "hidden" behind OO apis. How is this done?
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015, at 05:13 PM, Marc Feeley wrote:
At the Scheme level, you can express the OO style in various ways. Here are 2 that come to mind:
1) Your “new” operator could return a closure which receives as a first parameter the name of the method to be called. So you could:
(define o (new Lib)) (o print: "hello")
or
(define .print '.print) (o .print "hello")
2) You could make .print a function that receives as a first parameter the object on which the method applies. For example:
(define .print (lambda (self text) …)) (define o (new Lib)) (.print o "hello")
You can of course use macros to automate these styles.
Marc
On Dec 7, 2015, at 8:31 AM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
hi Sorry if this too obvious, but I don't understand how gambit handles objects from the hosts backend.
For example: if one would like to construct a 'Node' library for the JS backend, how would you do that? The whole node api seems to be object oriented. But also the Python standard libaries (batteries) are layed out class based. You had to do something like
(define o (new Lib)) (o.print "hello")
This looks wrong. What am I missing?
Regards ben _______________________________________________ Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
_______________________________________________ Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
Here’s a simple example creating a JavaScript Date object and extracting the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970: (define (new-Date) (##inline-host-expression "new Date()")) (define (.getTime obj) (##inline-host-expression "@1@.getTime()" obj)) (define o (new-Date)) (println (.getTime o)) This is possible because host objects can be used as Scheme objects (they are opaque, but you can return them from functions, pass them as function parameters and store them in data-structures). Does that clarify things? BTW, the above code can be improved quite a bit to make it more general. I’m just giving this example to show it is simple to interface to host objects. Marc
On Dec 7, 2015, at 11:44 AM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
Just to be a little more precise. Expressing OO style in Scheme was not my primary concern here. The problem I see is that the all of the host languages (except the original C backend) access their library functions through an OO interface. It's not like the library approach in scheme were you can directly use a function after you imported it.
That means if you want to use a function from a host language you first have to create an object. But now what is this object in Scheme and what can it do? In the best case, it would check the member calls at compile time. In the worst case it add runtime cost in the backend.
But thats just stuff I was thinking about.
What I wanted to know in the first place is how I should accessing backing library functions / ffing that are "hidden" behind OO apis. How is this done?
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015, at 05:13 PM, Marc Feeley wrote:
At the Scheme level, you can express the OO style in various ways. Here are 2 that come to mind:
1) Your “new” operator could return a closure which receives as a first parameter the name of the method to be called. So you could:
(define o (new Lib)) (o print: "hello")
or
(define .print '.print) (o .print "hello")
2) You could make .print a function that receives as a first parameter the object on which the method applies. For example:
(define .print (lambda (self text) …)) (define o (new Lib)) (.print o "hello")
You can of course use macros to automate these styles.
Marc
On Dec 7, 2015, at 8:31 AM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
hi Sorry if this too obvious, but I don't understand how gambit handles objects from the hosts backend.
For example: if one would like to construct a 'Node' library for the JS backend, how would you do that? The whole node api seems to be object oriented. But also the Python standard libaries (batteries) are layed out class based. You had to do something like
(define o (new Lib)) (o.print "hello")
This looks wrong. What am I missing?
Regards ben _______________________________________________ Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
thanks, so the trick is to mimic the oo style in Gambit. 7 (define (new-Date o) 8 (let ((obj (##inline-host-expression "new Date()"))) 10 (lambda (f) 11 (f obj)))) 14 15 (define date (new-Date "Date")) 16 17 (print (date .getTime)) What do you think of this notation? On Mon, Dec 7, 2015, at 06:00 PM, Marc Feeley wrote:
Here’s a simple example creating a JavaScript Date object and extracting the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970:
(define (new-Date) (##inline-host-expression "new Date()"))
(define (.getTime obj) (##inline-host-expression "@1@.getTime()" obj))
(define o (new-Date))
(println (.getTime o))
This is possible because host objects can be used as Scheme objects (they are opaque, but you can return them from functions, pass them as function parameters and store them in data-structures).
Does that clarify things?
BTW, the above code can be improved quite a bit to make it more general. I’m just giving this example to show it is simple to interface to host objects.
Marc
On Dec 7, 2015, at 11:44 AM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
Just to be a little more precise. Expressing OO style in Scheme was not my primary concern here. The problem I see is that the all of the host languages (except the original C backend) access their library functions through an OO interface. It's not like the library approach in scheme were you can directly use a function after you imported it.
That means if you want to use a function from a host language you first have to create an object. But now what is this object in Scheme and what can it do? In the best case, it would check the member calls at compile time. In the worst case it add runtime cost in the backend.
But thats just stuff I was thinking about.
What I wanted to know in the first place is how I should accessing backing library functions / ffing that are "hidden" behind OO apis. How is this done?
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015, at 05:13 PM, Marc Feeley wrote:
At the Scheme level, you can express the OO style in various ways. Here are 2 that come to mind:
1) Your “new” operator could return a closure which receives as a first parameter the name of the method to be called. So you could:
(define o (new Lib)) (o print: "hello")
or
(define .print '.print) (o .print "hello")
2) You could make .print a function that receives as a first parameter the object on which the method applies. For example:
(define .print (lambda (self text) …)) (define o (new Lib)) (.print o "hello")
You can of course use macros to automate these styles.
Marc
On Dec 7, 2015, at 8:31 AM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
hi Sorry if this too obvious, but I don't understand how gambit handles objects from the hosts backend.
For example: if one would like to construct a 'Node' library for the JS backend, how would you do that? The whole node api seems to be object oriented. But also the Python standard libaries (batteries) are layed out class based. You had to do something like
(define o (new Lib)) (o.print "hello")
This looks wrong. What am I missing?
Regards ben _______________________________________________ Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
Yes the idea is to mimic the OO style. Here’s some tested code: (##declare (extended-bindings) (not safe)) (##inline-host-declaration " function getGlobal(name) { return this[name]; } ") (define (new constructor . args) (let ((obj (create-object constructor args))) (lambda (method . args) (call-method obj method args)))) (define (create-object constructor args) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "new (getGlobal(@1@.toString()))()" constructor) (let ((arg1 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "new (getGlobal(@1@.toString()))(g_scm2host(@2@))" constructor arg1) (let ((arg2 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "new (getGlobal(@1@.toString()))(g_scm2host(@2@),g_scm2host(@3@))" constructor arg1 arg2) (let ((arg3 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "new (getGlobal(@1@.toString()))(g_scm2host(@2@),g_scm2host(@3@),g_scm2host(@4@))" constructor arg1 arg2 arg3) (error "too many arguments to constructor"))))))))) (define (call-method obj method args) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "g_host2scm(@1@[@2@.toString()].call(@1@))" obj method) (let ((arg1 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "g_host2scm(@1@[@2@.toString()].call(@1@,g_scm2host(@2@)))" obj method arg1) (let ((arg2 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "g_host2scm(@1@[@2@.toString()].call(@1@,g_scm2host(@2@),g_scm2host(@3@)))" obj method arg1 arg2) (let ((arg3 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "g_host2scm(@1@[@2@.toString()].call(@1@,g_scm2host(@2@),g_scm2host(@3@),g_scm2host(@4@)))" obj method arg1 arg2) (error "too many arguments to method"))))))))) (define o (new 'Date "March 11, 1985")) (println (o getTime:)) (println (o toString:)) Marc
On Dec 7, 2015, at 3:17 PM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
thanks, so the trick is to mimic the oo style in Gambit.
7 (define (new-Date o) 8 (let ((obj (##inline-host-expression "new Date()"))) 10 (lambda (f) 11 (f obj)))) 14 15 (define date (new-Date "Date")) 16 17 (print (date .getTime))
What do you think of this notation?
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015, at 06:00 PM, Marc Feeley wrote:
Here’s a simple example creating a JavaScript Date object and extracting the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970:
(define (new-Date) (##inline-host-expression "new Date()"))
(define (.getTime obj) (##inline-host-expression "@1@.getTime()" obj))
(define o (new-Date))
(println (.getTime o))
This is possible because host objects can be used as Scheme objects (they are opaque, but you can return them from functions, pass them as function parameters and store them in data-structures).
Does that clarify things?
BTW, the above code can be improved quite a bit to make it more general. I’m just giving this example to show it is simple to interface to host objects.
Marc
On Dec 7, 2015, at 11:44 AM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
Just to be a little more precise. Expressing OO style in Scheme was not my primary concern here. The problem I see is that the all of the host languages (except the original C backend) access their library functions through an OO interface. It's not like the library approach in scheme were you can directly use a function after you imported it.
That means if you want to use a function from a host language you first have to create an object. But now what is this object in Scheme and what can it do? In the best case, it would check the member calls at compile time. In the worst case it add runtime cost in the backend.
But thats just stuff I was thinking about.
What I wanted to know in the first place is how I should accessing backing library functions / ffing that are "hidden" behind OO apis. How is this done?
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015, at 05:13 PM, Marc Feeley wrote:
At the Scheme level, you can express the OO style in various ways. Here are 2 that come to mind:
1) Your “new” operator could return a closure which receives as a first parameter the name of the method to be called. So you could:
(define o (new Lib)) (o print: "hello")
or
(define .print '.print) (o .print "hello")
2) You could make .print a function that receives as a first parameter the object on which the method applies. For example:
(define .print (lambda (self text) …)) (define o (new Lib)) (.print o "hello")
You can of course use macros to automate these styles.
Marc
On Dec 7, 2015, at 8:31 AM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
hi Sorry if this too obvious, but I don't understand how gambit handles objects from the hosts backend.
For example: if one would like to construct a 'Node' library for the JS backend, how would you do that? The whole node api seems to be object oriented. But also the Python standard libaries (batteries) are layed out class based. You had to do something like
(define o (new Lib)) (o.print "hello")
This looks wrong. What am I missing?
Regards ben _______________________________________________ Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
_______________________________________________ Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
(define o (new 'Date "March 11, 1985")) (println (o getTime:))
that looks clear and beautiful, thank you. Questions - is there a reason why you use a quoted symbol for the constructor and keywords for the method calls? I like it but I wonder if there are other reasons then aesthetic considerations. - the other thing I was wondering. I think its common that the first object in unquoted s-expression is an operator. In the case of "(obj method args)" the rules are little confusing because the expression only makes sense if you have the contextual knowledge of at least the second object (method). Maybe a solution could be to write something like (println (o. getTime:)) With the help of the dot it is immediately clear that the operator is in fact an object. On Mon, Dec 7, 2015, at 10:09 PM, Marc Feeley wrote:
Yes the idea is to mimic the OO style. Here’s some tested code:
(##declare (extended-bindings) (not safe))
(##inline-host-declaration "
function getGlobal(name) { return this[name]; }
")
(define (new constructor . args) (let ((obj (create-object constructor args))) (lambda (method . args) (call-method obj method args))))
(define (create-object constructor args) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "new (getGlobal(@1@.toString()))()" constructor) (let ((arg1 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "new (getGlobal(@1@.toString()))(g_scm2host(@2@))" constructor arg1) (let ((arg2 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "new (getGlobal(@1@.toString()))(g_scm2host(@2@),g_scm2host(@3@))" constructor arg1 arg2) (let ((arg3 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "new (getGlobal(@1@.toString()))(g_scm2host(@2@),g_scm2host(@3@),g_scm2host(@4@))" constructor arg1 arg2 arg3) (error "too many arguments to constructor")))))))))
(define (call-method obj method args) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "g_host2scm(@1@[@2@.toString()].call(@1@))" obj method) (let ((arg1 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "g_host2scm(@1@[@2@.toString()].call(@1@,g_scm2host(@2@)))" obj method arg1) (let ((arg2 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "g_host2scm(@1@[@2@.toString()].call(@1@,g_scm2host(@2@),g_scm2host(@3@)))" obj method arg1 arg2) (let ((arg3 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "g_host2scm(@1@[@2@.toString()].call(@1@,g_scm2host(@2@),g_scm2host(@3@),g_scm2host(@4@)))" obj method arg1 arg2) (error "too many arguments to method")))))))))
(define o (new 'Date "March 11, 1985"))
(println (o getTime:))
(println (o toString:))
Marc
On Dec 7, 2015, at 3:17 PM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
thanks, so the trick is to mimic the oo style in Gambit.
7 (define (new-Date o) 8 (let ((obj (##inline-host-expression "new Date()"))) 10 (lambda (f) 11 (f obj)))) 14 15 (define date (new-Date "Date")) 16 17 (print (date .getTime))
What do you think of this notation?
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015, at 06:00 PM, Marc Feeley wrote:
Here’s a simple example creating a JavaScript Date object and extracting the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970:
(define (new-Date) (##inline-host-expression "new Date()"))
(define (.getTime obj) (##inline-host-expression "@1@.getTime()" obj))
(define o (new-Date))
(println (.getTime o))
This is possible because host objects can be used as Scheme objects (they are opaque, but you can return them from functions, pass them as function parameters and store them in data-structures).
Does that clarify things?
BTW, the above code can be improved quite a bit to make it more general. I’m just giving this example to show it is simple to interface to host objects.
Marc
On Dec 7, 2015, at 11:44 AM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
Just to be a little more precise. Expressing OO style in Scheme was not my primary concern here. The problem I see is that the all of the host languages (except the original C backend) access their library functions through an OO interface. It's not like the library approach in scheme were you can directly use a function after you imported it.
That means if you want to use a function from a host language you first have to create an object. But now what is this object in Scheme and what can it do? In the best case, it would check the member calls at compile time. In the worst case it add runtime cost in the backend.
But thats just stuff I was thinking about.
What I wanted to know in the first place is how I should accessing backing library functions / ffing that are "hidden" behind OO apis. How is this done?
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015, at 05:13 PM, Marc Feeley wrote:
At the Scheme level, you can express the OO style in various ways. Here are 2 that come to mind:
1) Your “new” operator could return a closure which receives as a first parameter the name of the method to be called. So you could:
(define o (new Lib)) (o print: "hello")
or
(define .print '.print) (o .print "hello")
2) You could make .print a function that receives as a first parameter the object on which the method applies. For example:
(define .print (lambda (self text) …)) (define o (new Lib)) (.print o "hello")
You can of course use macros to automate these styles.
Marc
On Dec 7, 2015, at 8:31 AM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
hi Sorry if this too obvious, but I don't understand how gambit handles objects from the hosts backend.
For example: if one would like to construct a 'Node' library for the JS backend, how would you do that? The whole node api seems to be object oriented. But also the Python standard libaries (batteries) are layed out class based. You had to do something like
(define o (new Lib)) (o.print "hello")
This looks wrong. What am I missing?
Regards ben _______________________________________________ Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
_______________________________________________ Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
In the code I sent, you can use strings, symbols or keywords interchangeably for naming classes and methods. It is just a matter of style. Your suggestion to add a dot at the end of the variable containing an object is cute. It can be a reminder that a variable contains an object of the host language. Moreover you can avoid the quoting of the method names by using variables, so you could do: (define Date 'Date) (define getTime 'getTime) (define o. (new Date)) (println (o. getTime)) Marc
On Dec 8, 2015, at 3:07 AM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
(define o (new 'Date "March 11, 1985")) (println (o getTime:))
that looks clear and beautiful, thank you.
Questions - is there a reason why you use a quoted symbol for the constructor and keywords for the method calls? I like it but I wonder if there are other reasons then aesthetic considerations.
- the other thing I was wondering. I think its common that the first object in unquoted s-expression is an operator. In the case of "(obj method args)" the rules are little confusing because the expression only makes sense if you have the contextual knowledge of at least the second object (method). Maybe a solution could be to write something like (println (o. getTime:)) With the help of the dot it is immediately clear that the operator is in fact an object.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015, at 10:09 PM, Marc Feeley wrote:
Yes the idea is to mimic the OO style. Here’s some tested code:
(##declare (extended-bindings) (not safe))
(##inline-host-declaration "
function getGlobal(name) { return this[name]; }
")
(define (new constructor . args) (let ((obj (create-object constructor args))) (lambda (method . args) (call-method obj method args))))
(define (create-object constructor args) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "new (getGlobal(@1@.toString()))()" constructor) (let ((arg1 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "new (getGlobal(@1@.toString()))(g_scm2host(@2@))" constructor arg1) (let ((arg2 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "new (getGlobal(@1@.toString()))(g_scm2host(@2@),g_scm2host(@3@))" constructor arg1 arg2) (let ((arg3 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "new (getGlobal(@1@.toString()))(g_scm2host(@2@),g_scm2host(@3@),g_scm2host(@4@))" constructor arg1 arg2 arg3) (error "too many arguments to constructor")))))))))
(define (call-method obj method args) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "g_host2scm(@1@[@2@.toString()].call(@1@))" obj method) (let ((arg1 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "g_host2scm(@1@[@2@.toString()].call(@1@,g_scm2host(@2@)))" obj method arg1) (let ((arg2 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "g_host2scm(@1@[@2@.toString()].call(@1@,g_scm2host(@2@),g_scm2host(@3@)))" obj method arg1 arg2) (let ((arg3 (##car args)) (args (##cdr args))) (if (##null? args) (##inline-host-expression "g_host2scm(@1@[@2@.toString()].call(@1@,g_scm2host(@2@),g_scm2host(@3@),g_scm2host(@4@)))" obj method arg1 arg2) (error "too many arguments to method")))))))))
(define o (new 'Date "March 11, 1985"))
(println (o getTime:))
(println (o toString:))
Marc
On Dec 7, 2015, at 3:17 PM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
thanks, so the trick is to mimic the oo style in Gambit.
7 (define (new-Date o) 8 (let ((obj (##inline-host-expression "new Date()"))) 10 (lambda (f) 11 (f obj)))) 14 15 (define date (new-Date "Date")) 16 17 (print (date .getTime))
What do you think of this notation?
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015, at 06:00 PM, Marc Feeley wrote:
Here’s a simple example creating a JavaScript Date object and extracting the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970:
(define (new-Date) (##inline-host-expression "new Date()"))
(define (.getTime obj) (##inline-host-expression "@1@.getTime()" obj))
(define o (new-Date))
(println (.getTime o))
This is possible because host objects can be used as Scheme objects (they are opaque, but you can return them from functions, pass them as function parameters and store them in data-structures).
Does that clarify things?
BTW, the above code can be improved quite a bit to make it more general. I’m just giving this example to show it is simple to interface to host objects.
Marc
On Dec 7, 2015, at 11:44 AM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
Just to be a little more precise. Expressing OO style in Scheme was not my primary concern here. The problem I see is that the all of the host languages (except the original C backend) access their library functions through an OO interface. It's not like the library approach in scheme were you can directly use a function after you imported it.
That means if you want to use a function from a host language you first have to create an object. But now what is this object in Scheme and what can it do? In the best case, it would check the member calls at compile time. In the worst case it add runtime cost in the backend.
But thats just stuff I was thinking about.
What I wanted to know in the first place is how I should accessing backing library functions / ffing that are "hidden" behind OO apis. How is this done?
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015, at 05:13 PM, Marc Feeley wrote:
At the Scheme level, you can express the OO style in various ways. Here are 2 that come to mind:
1) Your “new” operator could return a closure which receives as a first parameter the name of the method to be called. So you could:
(define o (new Lib)) (o print: "hello")
or
(define .print '.print) (o .print "hello")
2) You could make .print a function that receives as a first parameter the object on which the method applies. For example:
(define .print (lambda (self text) …)) (define o (new Lib)) (.print o "hello")
You can of course use macros to automate these styles.
Marc
> On Dec 7, 2015, at 8:31 AM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote: > > hi > Sorry if this too obvious, but I don't understand how gambit handles > objects from the hosts backend. > > > For example: if one would like to construct a 'Node' library for the JS > backend, how would you do that? The whole node api seems to be object > oriented. But also the Python standard libaries (batteries) are layed > out class based. You had to do something like > > (define o (new Lib)) > (o.print "hello") > > This looks wrong. What am I missing? > > Regards > ben > _______________________________________________ > Gambit-list mailing list > Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca > https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
_______________________________________________ Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
_______________________________________________ Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
Or you can do what we use in gerbil: {print o "hello"} reader translates to (call-method 'print o "hello") -- vyzo On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Marc Feeley <feeley@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
At the Scheme level, you can express the OO style in various ways. Here are 2 that come to mind:
1) Your “new” operator could return a closure which receives as a first parameter the name of the method to be called. So you could:
(define o (new Lib)) (o print: "hello")
or
(define .print '.print) (o .print "hello")
2) You could make .print a function that receives as a first parameter the object on which the method applies. For example:
(define .print (lambda (self text) …)) (define o (new Lib)) (.print o "hello")
You can of course use macros to automate these styles.
Marc
On Dec 7, 2015, at 8:31 AM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
hi Sorry if this too obvious, but I don't understand how gambit handles objects from the hosts backend.
For example: if one would like to construct a 'Node' library for the JS backend, how would you do that? The whole node api seems to be object oriented. But also the Python standard libaries (batteries) are layed out class based. You had to do something like
(define o (new Lib)) (o.print "hello")
This looks wrong. What am I missing?
Regards ben _______________________________________________ Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
_______________________________________________ Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
to be more precise: gambit's reader allows you to specify a symbolic macro for curly braces {} we use @method, so when the reader sees {print o "hello"} it gets read to (@method print o hello). @method is a (user-programmable) core macro, with default expansion to (call-method 'print o "hello") call-method in gambit is implemented like this: (define (call-method obj id . args) (cond ((method-ref obj id) => (lambda (method) (apply method obj args))) (else (error "Cannot find method" obj id)))) (define (method-ref obj id) (and (object? obj) (find-method (object-type obj) id))) hope that helps, -- vyzo On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Dimitris Vyzovitis <vyzo@hackzen.org> wrote:
Or you can do what we use in gerbil: {print o "hello"}
reader translates to (call-method 'print o "hello")
-- vyzo
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Marc Feeley <feeley@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
At the Scheme level, you can express the OO style in various ways. Here are 2 that come to mind:
1) Your “new” operator could return a closure which receives as a first parameter the name of the method to be called. So you could:
(define o (new Lib)) (o print: "hello")
or
(define .print '.print) (o .print "hello")
2) You could make .print a function that receives as a first parameter the object on which the method applies. For example:
(define .print (lambda (self text) …)) (define o (new Lib)) (.print o "hello")
You can of course use macros to automate these styles.
Marc
On Dec 7, 2015, at 8:31 AM, ben yakawp <ben.lists@yakawp.com> wrote:
hi Sorry if this too obvious, but I don't understand how gambit handles objects from the hosts backend.
For example: if one would like to construct a 'Node' library for the JS backend, how would you do that? The whole node api seems to be object oriented. But also the Python standard libaries (batteries) are layed out class based. You had to do something like
(define o (new Lib)) (o.print "hello")
This looks wrong. What am I missing?
Regards ben _______________________________________________ Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
_______________________________________________ Gambit-list mailing list Gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list
participants (4)
-
Adam -
ben yakawp -
Dimitris Vyzovitis -
Marc Feeley