Bill Tozier

LOL. You easy to tease. OK, so only a worse programmer than I am would actually change your codebase for something this dramatic. I've started a strongly-tested branch that is...

Clarification (can't edit these on phone): Basically the use case for Clojush remains exactly the same in both schemes. The user (student, researcher, whoever) makes a new settings file that...

Actually, to follow up with a real keyboard: There's no substantial difference in the resulting architecture at the level I can see from here. An "Interpreter" is almost exactly equivalent...

Yes, @saulshanabrook: Each `Interpreter` will have a self-contained hash of instructions.

Not soon. Maybe two weeks, if I stay healthy and have enough money to keep the heat on.

I would be happy to add these. I've done them at least twice in `push-forth` and `duck`, and it's a good place for me to get a better sense of...

So let it be written.

My idea right now is to bring over something like the `:enumerator` type I built in one of the other languages. It is a direct extension of the forms you...

Is there a pre-existing idiom (or convenience function) for adding a new type to `clojush.globals/push-types`? I would prefer to have the responsibility for registering a new type live in the...

I could use some feedback on [the work I've done so far](https://github.com/NicMcPhee/Clojush/tree/enumerators). It's not in any sense "done", mainly because there's a huge amount of repetition in the instruction definitions,...