[Push] Reserved names and active features

[Lee Spector]

In the Common Lisp implementation of Push3 the concept of "active instruction" is basically what you say here: symbols that name implemented instructions are recognized as instructions and executed whether or not they are "active," and the active status only affects random code generation and the behavior of the code.instructions instruction. I'm not sure this is the best way to do things. In schush and clojush I haven't implemented names so the issue doesn't arise -- all symbols are assumed to name instructions and if you try to execute one that doesn't then something breaks.

 -Lee


On Jun 26, 2010, at 7:08 PM, PerPlex Ed wrote:

> Hello.
> 
> I'm trying to semplify my implementation but I'd like to be sure I'm doing the right thing.
> 
> Previously the parser considered reserved names all names of active instructions. This meant that the parser had to know the configuration in advance. This is harder or probably impossible to implement correctly when you use multiple related concurrent interpreters.  I re-read the language description and I guess I understood it wrong.
> 
> A Push implementation should always accept all instructions from the source code, so all names corresponding to instructions included in a given implementation are reserved. The concept of "active instruction" is used only when generating random code.
> 
> Is this right?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> PerPlexEd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Push mailing list
> Push at lists.hampshire.edu
> https://lists.hampshire.edu/mailman/listinfo/push

--
Lee Spector, Professor of Computer Science
School of Cognitive Science, Hampshire College
893 West Street, Amherst, MA 01002-3359
lspector at hampshire.edu, http://hampshire.edu/lspector/
Phone: 413-559-5352, Fax: 413-559-5438

Check out Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines:
http://www.springer.com/10710 - http://gpemjournal.blogspot.com/