[PittleyDunkin]

> Why this works is that the #H hash literal syntax is a true literal. Every time that expression is evaluated, it yields the same hash table, which is mutable.

While this is cool and I think I grok the semantics, the identification of it as a "true literal" has me scratching my head. To me a literal is a syntactical term, so putting a literal into a rom image only makes sense in terms of storing the source itself (which is not necessary most of the time, but might make sense in a lisp).

First-class support for partial evaluation looks really cool. I've been playing around with a scheme dialect built around this very concept.

[kazinator]

A literal is not purely a syntactical term. A literal is an object that is embedded in the program itself. As such, it is necessarily part of the syntax: the piece of syntax denoting the literal is understood to be that object itself.

However, note that syntax disappears when the program is compiled. The literal itself does not!!! (Unless identified as dead code and eliminated, of course).

Even using the C language as an example we can readily distinguish between literal syntax and semantics. The string literal syntas "abc\n" includes the double quotes and backslash. Yet the string literal object at run time has no double quotes or backslash, and the n after the backslash was turned into a newline (linefeed in ASCII). (C compilers on Unix-like platforms do in fact map string literals to read-only memory. It's not ROM, but wite-protected VM. Firmwares written in C being burned into ROM are thing also. The literals are then in ROM.)

In Lisp, we think of the objects as being source code, so it's a little different. The C idea of the double quotes and backslash being source is called "read syntax" in Lisp, particularly Common Lisp. Scheme might use "read syntax", I'm not sure. In any case, "surface syntax" or "character-level syntax" are also useful synonyms. Note

Lisp compilers and interpreters take the scanned-surface-syntax-turned-object as their input. We could call that deep syntax. So a quoted literal is literally a chunk of the deep syntax, turned into a datum for the program: (quote X) embeds the syntax X into the program, making it available as a datum, and the compiler will process that quote construct by propagating X as is into the compiled image, arranging it to be part of some table or literals or whatever.

Some object are self-quoting, like numbers of strings, or #(...) vectors in Common Lisp and Scheme.

The TXR Lisp #H(...) hash syntax is like this. If it appears as an evaluated expression in code, then it is a literal. The compiler must propagate that to the compiled image, just like a vector, string, or number.

[PittleyDunkin]

> However, note that syntax disappears when the program is compiled. The literal itself does not!!!

I would term this a "value". The word "literal" is inherently lexical, dealing with letters (ie a signifier) from an etymological standpoint as opposed to the value (the signified).

Or to further clarify my confusion, a symbol is a value that can be evaluated to a different value at runtime but I wouldn't call it a "literal" outside the context of a legible source file.

Perhaps the one exception I can think of is the use of macros, but macros are distinguished from other list transformations by being specifically applied to source code (and also runtime values, but at LEAST source code). So it makes sense that they have some value-form of literals—ie signified signifiers that are not themselves symbols or quoted values.

I don't want to argue, I'm just pointing out the diction here is super confusing at the very least to me. A literal is just that-a lexical object that makes up part of a source

> Yet the string literal object at run time

I would again term this a "value" that the literal evaluates to at compile-time, or alternatively a "value" that the literal signifies to the reader. Even homoiconic languages like lisp differentiate between source and runtime forms. In the context of c I would consider the concept of a "runtime literal" to be a contradictory/paradoxical/incoherent/nonsensical one.

That said, what you were showcasing remains very cool regardless of how we refer to the forms. A great demonstration on how there's only really one difficult problem—naming shit! Basically all other problems follow from this original one (yes, even cache invalidation and coloring and off-by-one errors).

[kazinator]

"literal" a short for "literal constant" which is in contrast to "symbolic constant".

3.1415926535 is a literal constant; π is symbolic.

The former constant literally is the value, whereas π isn't literally that value.

There's another term we could use for the runtime counterpart of the literal. In machine languages we have something called an immediate operand. For instance an instruction which moves a constant value into a register, like mov r1, 42 is said to have an immediate operand. This operand is baked right into the instruction code word, or an adjacent word.

Thus, a source code literal constant, or possibly a symbolic constant, appearing in the assembly language, becomes an immediate operand in the running machine language.

In higher level languages we just tend to use the word literal for both. And of course what that means is that a symbolic constant can become a literal one at runtime, due to a translation time substitution of symbolic constants by their values in place.

An immediate operand is an object. What makes it special is that it lives inside the program code. Each time the instruction is executed which references the immediate operand, it references that one and only operand. The only way for that reference to get a different value would be if the program were modified the runtime: that is, if it were self-modifying.

Literals, or shall we say immediate operands, being part of the program, are assumed not to be modified. Compilers can optimize them in various ways, like usung one object for multiple occurrences of the same literal. Or they can arrange for these literals to be in unwritable storage. Some literals can be stuffed into the immediate operand fields of machine instructions.

So yes, literals correspond to runtime objects, but objects which often have special treatment and rules regarding their use.