User talk:Jo-lieang

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Jo-lieang, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract machines material[edit]

Hi, I saw your edits on Meta-circular evaluator and I have mixed feelings about them. On the one hand it's interesting material, on the other hand, I checked Danvy's dissertation and the other sources and they don't talk about meta-circular evaluators at all. So it's an instance of WP:COATRACK and not really the right place. What do you think about moving the material to Abstract machine#Functional programming languages? I realize the current structure of that article isn't really accommodating to the material, but at least it's the right article. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message.

The opening two sentences of the page are:

> In computing, a meta-circular evaluator (MCE) or meta-circular interpreter (MCI) is an interpreter which defines each feature of the interpreted language using a similar facility of the interpreter's host language.

> For example, interpreting a lambda application may be implemented using function application.

Then the origin of the term "meta-circular" is stated (it is due to Reynolds).

Then the two last introductory sentences of the section "Self-interpreters" are:

> A self-interpreter will provide a circular, vacuous definition of most language constructs and thus provides little insight into the interpreted language's semantics, for example evaluation strategy.

> Addressing these issues produces the more general notion of a "definitional interpreter".

The new section both substantiates and exemplifies the points above:

the code of a self-interpreter for a lambda-language is stated, where syntactic functions are defined as semantic functions and syntactic applications are defined as semantic applications
the point about the evaluation strategy is spelled out
how Reynolds solved these issues is also reviewed

The section concludes on how self-interpreters are not centrally isolated at all.

They are at the center of computing in that the three most famous abstract machines for the lambda-calculus can be derived from self-interpreters.

(And for the CEK machine, "can be" is actually "has been", in Reynolds's paper.)

Danvy's dissertation prominently refers to Reynolds and to Definitional Interpreters, and his earlier work, e.g., on reflective towers ("Intensions and Extensions in a Reflective Tower", 1988) is all about meta-circularity and self-interpreters.

Conclusion:

Danvy's dissertation builds on Reynolds's paper, where the term "metacircular" was coined.

The new section substantiates and exemplifies the general points made earlier in the page.

It also illustrates a significance of self-interpreters that was not addressed in the page, namely that significant things can be derived from them.

So this section should stay in this page, and it is now written from scratch, using OCaml rather than Standard ML.

Thanks again for your message. Jo-lieang (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Jo-lieang! Your additions to Meta-circular evaluator have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diannaa. Thanks for your message. Your point is very well taken, and the additions have been re-written from scratch. Thank you again. Jo-lieang (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Refocusing (semantics) has been accepted[edit]

Refocusing (semantics), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Stuartyeates (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]