Possibly we can hack apart 'ac and fix the parts where 'ar-eval is randomly inserted, even though they are unnecessary (I think).
However the million dollar question of optimizing an Arc with a redefinable 'eval is the fact that Arc 'eval has TWO steps: compilation and then evaluation. Function definitions are always compiled.
For example:
; eval to make everything postfix
(redef eval (e)
(if (acons e)
(given fun (last e)
arg (cut body 0 -1)
(old `(,fun ,@arg)))
(old e)))
(t 0 5 if)
(nil 0 5 if)
But how do you handle functions?
(foo ((x)
(x
0
42
if)
fn)
set)
Do you implicitly insert 'eval to the function body, or not?
This is actually also the million-dollar semantic question. Right now, arc-eval is not inserted around function or macro bodies, so only top-level forms (those at the repl) are affected. But we can't insert it around bodies as is, because (1) Arc-side eval doesn't take an environment, but they need to pass an environment in, and (2) they don't evaluate things immediately, but instead they create the forms that will be evaluated. What is the best way to do things here? We have no other language to guide us, after all.
I'm curious: So arc-eval translates your arc code into scheme code and then passes it to scheme's eval? If so, would it be possible to print the scheme code to a file before it gets evaluated?
That could be accomplished by redefining 'arc-eval rather than 'eval. 'arc-eval is used internally for evaluating top-level forms but not really anything else since it isn't exposed to arc, whereas 'eval could be used by arbitrary arc code. If you want to redefine the top-level evaluation function, than maybe what you want is some way to influence the results of 'arc-eval.
I guess I misunderstood your intention. I thought you wanted to be able to redefine the existing toplevel used by the arc interpreter itself, not define a completely new toplevel to be used in user code... (and yes, the latter is quite trivial).
> I thought you wanted to be able to redefine the existing toplevel used by the arc interpreter itself
As opposed to emulating the existing toplevel in user code?
Allowing a redefinition of 'eval to work on the REPL will probably be OK, but still, there would be an impedance mismatch with functions that were defined before 'eval was redefined.
