Spec
Closed this issue · 4 comments
We should have a Lurk spec. Not only with this be valuable/necessary long-term, it will give us a useful artifact to coordinate/discuss changes as we move from initial proof-of-concept (v0.1?) to a next, more robust definition.
Since the current language is now well-defined and may be completely locked down (and if not, is very close) for v0.1, we could probably spec it exactly as is. @namin You could probably do a good job with this. Please let me know if you are interested.
@emmorais I think you can spec the circuit and that this will be useful for a number of reasons. However, since the circuit definition itself is still WIP, I wouldn't necessarily recommend starting in on that just yet…
Hi Chhi'mèd,
Do you mean spec it at the level of api.lisp or also taking the iteration counting and such of lang.lisp/eval.rs?
I guess we need both, eventually. But we could start with just defining the user language (i.e. api.lisp). It probably makes sense to present in the same 3 layers we already have. What do you think?
Makes sense.