occam REPL (was: RE: [Fwd: Re: my web site (fwd)])

[tjoccam@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Hi Kevin, Matt, Allan and all,

Kevin wrote:
> All the channels are hidden inside the Plug and Play components.  This
> also scales up for processes with multiple inputs and outputs:
> <SNIP>
> As I said, its more of a toy than anything, but it can be a little bit fun
> just plugging components together like this.

It can be more important than that, if it leads to a sane and usable
definition of "component".

Matt wrote:
> I certainly do appreciate the attractiveness of a REPL; I spend a great
> deal of my time developing in Scheme, and greatly value the
> interactivity a REPL affords. However, a REPL does present a number of
> thought problems for a CSP-based langauge. For example, any attempt to
> develop a REPL would require us to be able to execute incomplete process
> networks, so you could develop and execute individual processes one at a
> time.

Again, this sounds like sane components (by which I mean things like a
component you can install under the hood of your car, as opposed to OO
"components"; see my web page www.tjoccam.com and white paper). They would
be like black boxes with channels hanging out, and the REPL would
presumably involve two stylized text channels with an ALT functioning as
the OS. Does anyone have the official, agreed-upon specs for the behavior
of a REPL? Just turn it into an occam harness, in which the incomplete
process network can be inserted. I'd consider working on it myself...

> <SNIP>
> It may be of interest to this list that the Transterpreter has now gone
> open source, and an anonymous SVN now exists[1].

The REPL would complement this beautifully, by giving everyone an easy
introduction to sane components.

Larry Dickson