On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 22:06 +0100, Ben Smith wrote:
> On 07/05/07, Erick Tryzelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 8. We have a lot of c wrapping keywords, "cclass", "cfun", "cparse",
> > "cproc", "cstruct", and "ctypes". Perhaps we could replace all of these
> > with just a prefix keyword like "cwrap" which you could use like "cwrap
> > class", "cwrap fun" and etc. I'm not crazy about that particular name
> > though.
>
> ...When you read it quickly, it sounds like "crap".
>
>
> --- Sorry, I know that's not particularly helpful input. From an
> outsider's perspective, though, Felix does appear to have a lot of
> keywords and funny syntaxes to be remembered...
There's a reason for that: it has it's own abstract syntax
and semantics AND an extension for binding to C.
Some languagee call this an FFI but for Felix it is really
a 'native' interface not a foreign one .. :)
It is messy though. For example:
type int = "int";
ctypes int; // means the same -- just sugar
fun f: int -> int = "f($1)";
fun f(x:int):int => x + x;
fun f(x:int): int = { return x + x; }
It's a bit ugly that the C binding uses a string, would
may have been better to have:
fun f: int -> int = C"f($1)";
fun f(x:int):int = x + x;
--
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Felix-language mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/felix-language
