The grammar of Thun is very simple. A Thun expression is zero or more
Thun terms separated by blanks. Terms can be integers in decimal
notation, Booleans true and false, lists enclosed by square brackets
[ and ], or symbols (names of functions.)
joy ::= term*
term ::= integer | bool | '[' joy ']' | symbol
integer ::= 0 | [ '-' ] ('1'...'9') ('0'...'9')*
bool ::= 'true' | 'false'
symbol ::= char+
char ::= <Any non-space other than '[' and ']'.>
Symbols can be composed of any characters except blanks and square
brackets. Integers can be prefixed with a minus sign to denote negative
numbers. The symbols true and false are reserved to denote their
respective Boolean values.
That's it. That's the whole of the grammar.
The original Joy has several datatypes (such as strings and sets) but the Thun dialect currently only uses four:
true and false.[ and ] brackets.Thun is built around three things: a stack of data items, an expression representing a program to evaluate, and a dictionary of named functions.
Thun is
stack-based.
There is a single main stack that holds data items, which can be
integers, bools, symbols (names), or sequences of data items enclosed in
square brackets ([ or ]).
We use the terms "stack", "quote", "sequence", "list", and others to mean the same thing: a simple linear datatype that permits certain operations such as iterating and pushing and popping values from (at least) one end.
In describing Joy I have used the term quotation to describe all of the above, because I needed a word to describe the arguments to combinators which fulfill the same role in Joy as lambda abstractions (with variables) fulfill in the more familiar functional languages. I use the term list for those quotations whose members are what I call literals: numbers, characters, truth values, sets, strings and other quotations. All these I call literals because their occurrence in code results in them being pushed onto the stack. But I also call [London Paris] a list. So, [dup *] is a quotation but not a list.
From "A Conversation with Manfred von Thun" w/ Stevan Apter
A Thun expression is just a sequence or list of items. Sequences intended as programs are called "quoted programs". Evaluation proceeds by iterating through the terms in an expression putting all literals (integers, bools, or lists) onto the main stack and executing functions named by symbols as they are encountered. Functions receive the current stack, expression, and dictionary and return the next stack, expression, and dictionary.
The dictionary associates symbols (names) with Thun expressions that define the available functions of the Thun system. Together the stack, expression, and dictionary are the entire state of the Thun interpreter.
The Thun interpreter is extremely simple. It accepts a stack, an expression, and a dictionary, and it iterates through the expression putting values onto the stack and delegating execution to functions which it looks up in the dictionary.
All control flow works by Continuation Passing Style. Combinators (see below) alter control flow by prepending quoted programs to the pending expression (aka "continuation".)
Terms in Thun can be categorized into literals, simple functions that operate on the stack only, and combinators that can prepend quoted programs onto the pending expression ("continuation").
Literal values (integers, Booleans, lists) are put onto the stack. Literals can be thought of as functions that accept a stack and return it with the value they denote on top.
Functions take values from the stack and push results onto it. There are a few kinds of functions: math, comparison, list and stack manipulation.
Combinators are functions which accept quoted programs on the stack
and run them in various ways by prepending them (or not) to the pending
expression. These combinators reify specific control-flow patterns (such
as ifte which is like if.. then.. else.. in other languages.)
Combinators receive the current expession in addition to the stack and
return the next expression. They work by changing the pending expression
the interpreter is about to execute.
Thun has a set of basis functions which are implemented in the host language. The rest of functions in the Thun dialect are defined in terms of these:
branch dip i loopclear dup pop stack swaack swapconcat cons first rest+ - * / %< > >= <= != <> =truthy notinscribeThun can be extended by adding new definitions to the defs.txt file and rebuilding the binaries. Each line in the file is a definition consisting of the new symbol name followed by an expression for the body of the function.
The defs.txt file is just joy expressions, one per line, that have a
symbol followed by the definition for that symbol, e.g.:
sqr dup mul
The definitions form a DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) (there is actually a
cycle in the definition of genrec but that's the point, it is a cycle
to itself that captures the cyclical nature of recursive definitions.)
I don't imagine that people will read defs.txt to understand Thun code.
Instead people should read the notebooks that derive the functions to
understand them. The reference docs should help, and to that end I'd
like to cross-link them with the notebooks. The idea is that the docs
are the code and the code is just a way to make precise the ideas in the
docs.
inscribeYou can use the inscribe command to put new definitions into the
dictionary at runtime, but they will not persist after the program ends.
The inscribe function is the only function that changes the dictionary.
It's meant for prototyping. (You could abuse it to make variables by
storing "functions" in the dictionary that just contain literal values as
their bodies.)
[foo bar baz] inscribe
This will put a definition for foo into the dictionary as bar baz.
Nothing prevents you from using symbols as data:
joy? [cats]
[cats]
But there's a potential pitfall: you might accidentally get a "bare" unquoted symbol on the stack:
joy? [cats]
[cats]
joy? first
cats
That by itself won't break anything (the stack is just a list.)
But if you were to use, say, dip, in such a way as to put the symbol
back onto the expression, then when the interpreter encounters it, it
will attempt to evaluate it, which is almost certainly not what you want.
cats
joy? [23] dip
Unknown: cats
cats
At the very least you get an "Unknown" error, but if the symbol names a function then the interpreter will attempt to evaluate it, probably leading to an error.
I don't see an easy way around this. Be careful? It's kind of against the spirit of the thing to just leave a footgun like that laying around, but perhaps in practice it won't come up. (Because writing Thun code by derivation seems to lead to bug-free code, which is the kinda the point.)
There are several small choices to be made when implementing a Thun
interpreter (TODO: make a comprehensive list), for example, the Python
interpreter keeps all of its functions in one dictionary but most of the
other interpreters have a case or switch statement for the built-in
functions and a separate hash table for definitions. Additionally, of
the interpreters that have hash tables most of them check the hash table
after the case statement. This means that one cannot "shadow" built-in
functions in some interpreters. You can inscribe them, but the
interpreter will not look for them.
I haven't yet formally made a decision for how Thun shall work. Letting built-ins be shadowed is fun and useful for exploration, and letting them be inviolate is useful for unsurprising behaviour.
Another choice is how to handle duplicate definitions in general. Should
you be able to reuse a name? Or should inscribe throw some sort of
error if you try?
Copyright © 2014 - 2023 Simon Forman
This file is part of Thun