~ATH interpreter (it works!)(feedback requested)

[humbleElitist]

How do you install this into python? (Total programming noob here. Sorry!)

err. You make sure you have python 2.7 installed, and that .py files are associated with python.
Then you go to the folder (affter unzipping it).
Then you double click on interp_2.py
then type the name of the ~ATH script.
You don't have to "install" the interpreter. You just run it.

A.PROMPT(); is cool.
INPUT A; is also cool. It reminds me of assembly code.

The reason things were really strange is because I didn't really follow a specific syntax when suggesting it. I was just writing it how I would think it would be written (in which case, it'd be Arsenicum~ATH instead of Drocta~ATH, ahahaha).

I totally forgot about bifurcating, though. So yeah, it works pretty well without an input type.

I like A.PROMPT(); because it seems to fit in more with "canonical" ~ATH. Maybe with a different name then Prompt though to fit in with the "life and death" theme, although I don't know what would be fitting.

The main reason I would like to avoid using
A.PROMPT();
is that it would change what object A points to, instead of changing the object that A points to.
Unlike A.DIE(); which kills the object that A points to, not A itself. (as A is a variable that points to an object, and as such has no alive/dead state)


I am working on implementing input.
I think it is almost working.
It is not yet on github.
For now I will be using
INPUT VARNAME;
for getting text input.

Currently there is no way to tell what object corresponds to what character (though a character will always correspond to the same object)
So you would pretty much have to ask the user to type in all the characters you would be using.
I don't feel this is entirely satisfying, so I am open to suggestions on what type of syntax should be used to make a certain pre specified character's object be pointed to by a variable.

Also, there will be a variable called NULL that by default will contain an object that is already dead.
Suggestions open on whether this variable should have a different name.

edit: I might edit this post to improve my responces, because I feel that my responces are incomplete.

[humbleElitist]

INPUT command has been added!
However, characters can only be compared to previously entered characters so far.
so if your imput was
abcdn
bacbnd

it would be equivilent to if you had entered

zxcvb
xzcxbv

How do you all fell about that partcular property?
I think maybe I should make something so you can say something like
LETTERS "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ:+" L;

what do you think about that?

What would the syntax be?

[Arsenicum]

INPUT command has been added!
However, characters can only be compared to previously entered characters so far.
so if your imput was
abcdn
bacbnd

it would be equivilent to if you had entered

zxcvb
xzcxbv

How do you all fell about that partcular property?
I think maybe I should make something so you can say something like
LETTERS "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ:+" L;

what do you think about that?

What would the syntax be?

How about keycodes? A is 1, B is 2, etc.

[humbleElitist]

How about keycodes? A is 1, B is 2, etc.

There's a problem with that.
Numbers are composed of values, through (reverse) bifurcation.
There is more than one style of number that can be used.
I don't like the idea of making a one true composition of a number.
I would have to make it such that there was some special value that those numberse were composed of.
This strikes me as unsatisfactory.

Another thing I could do would be to allow placing a string literal in the place of a variable.
So for example if one was allowed to say
BIFURCATE [D,"Hello, World"]H;
BIFURCATE H[D,H];

What is your opinion on that?

[Arsenicum]

There's a problem with that.
Numbers are composed of values, through (reverse) bifurcation.
There is more than one style of number that can be used.
I don't like the idea of making a one true composition of a number.
I would have to make it such that there was some special value that those numberse were composed of.
This strikes me as unsatisfactory.

Another thing I could do would be to allow placing a string literal in the place of a variable.
So for example if one was allowed to say
BIFURCATE [D,"Hello, World"]H;
BIFURCATE H[D,H];

What is your opinion on that?

That works. Bifurcating seems to be the bees knees in Drocta ~ATH.

[humbleElitist]

Ok, I have written the post on how to make finite loops, and an introduction to how to essentially create numbers.
I am uncertain of how clear it is, and I would like feedback on that.

[humbleElitist]

GHSDHGKLSDGHK
I WROTE THE THING FOR USER INPUT, AND NOW ITS GONE.
WHAT THE HECK.


GNBKLJSDBGLKJDBSLKGJGBKL



THE THING FOR TESTING IT IS STILL HERE, AND THE TEST WORKED.

WHY ISN'T THE CODE FREAKING THERE.


ok.
I rewrote it.
It pushed to the github.
I also found a problem in the reverse bifurcation that I fixed.
when one did reverse bifurcation, and created a new object, the objects it was made from didnt know about it, so if you called reverse bifurcate again with the same objects, it would keep making new ones.

blog post for how to make it interpret the numbers as input still pending.

[humbleElitist]

Ok.
Requesting input as to the syntax of defining a function.

Each function only takes one argument ( BIFURCATion can easily allow the single argument to act as however many are needed)

but I dont know what syntax I should use for function definition.

im considering return could just be the .DIE statement with the returned object as the parameter.

so
THIS.DIE(OBJ);

What do you think?

I was thinking that the argument does not need to be named in the definition, because theres always just one argument it could always have the same name.

maybe something like

FUNCTION FUNCTIONNAME{
CODE;
THIS.DIE(RETURNOBJECT);
}

but there needs to be some name to the argument.

ARG maybe?

so it would be like

FUNCTION DOUBLE{
BIFURCATE [ARG,ARG]G;
BIFURCATE G[NCOPY,RESULT];
~ATH(NCOPY){
BIFURCATE NCOPY[JUNK,NCOPY];
BIFURCATE [BLAH,RESULT]RESULT;
}
THIS.DIE(RESULT);
}

Is this how this should be done or not?

also, should the functions be objects?

like, should you be able to pass a function to a function?

opinions?

[Arsenicum]

The syntax looks understandable, and makes sense with ~ATH. Functions as objects sounds a bit odd, but it does make the return a bit easier, I guess.

[humbleElitist]

Ok.
I will do it like that then.
But that, like the print statement, might have a change in syntax in the future.