I am about to commit a new version of Felix which uses actual operator symbols
for
function names, instead of parser mapped names .. in most cases.. :)
For example, to make x + y work, you define:
fun + : int * int -> int = "$1+$2";
rather than the old
fun add: int * int -> int = "$1+$2";
Whilst this work just fine at the moment, a problem in the lexer has forced me
to
list all the operators as identifiers in the Dypgen lexer (i.e. hard coded).
I would have prefered:
symchar+
as the definition, where symchar is any one of the weirdo special characters,
however for some reason this prevents /* being interpreted as the start of a
C comment (even though that is given first in the lexer).
For some operators you can unambiguously do this:
fun < : int * int -> bool = "$1<$2";
println$ 1 < 2, < (3,4);
because the second "<" isn't in an "infix" position, the parser treats it just
like
any name: as a prefix function application.
However, there is a problem: for operators like +,-,* which have both infix
and prefix interpretations, this doesn't work. In particular this fails
miserably:
println (+ of (int * int) (1,2));
and gets parsed like
println ( ( (+ of) (int*int)) (1,2) );
probably because + is also a prefix operator. Prefix operators are NOT the same
as
function applications, the precedences are different. This works fine:
println ( / of (int * int) (1,2) );
which demonstrates this ( / is a name like "fred" is a name, / isn't also
a prefix operator).
Therefore, classes introduce the old bindings such as "add" for "+",
as non-virtual functions, so you can just write
println (add of (int * int) (1,2));
Note, however, that when defining an instance of the class with virtual fun +,
you have to make an instance with fun +, NOT fun add: the add function
is just a wrapper around +.
====================================
I am not happy with the arbitrariness of definitions in classes. It is the same
as in Haskell but it sucks anyhow. You are forced to define fun < to get a total
order for example. Why not > ? or >= ? This is a big topic, so no more here:
suffice it t say the actual requirement is to specify a conforming basis
of functions, but there's no easy way to specify or check that at present.
[I tried once before but caught up in knots] See next topic also:
====================================
At present when you define a type and want some functionality, you have to do
this
////
ctypes mode_t requires Posix_headers::sys_types_h;
instance Bits[mode_t] {} // defaults to C operators
instance Eq[mode_t] { fun == : mode_t * mode_t -> bool = "$1==$2"; }
open Eq[mode_t];
open Bits[mode_t];
val access_mask = S_IXOTH \| S_IXGRP \| S_IXUSR;
////
The "Bits" instance only works because I defaulted Bits functions to C.
Since Eq's == isn't defaulted, we have to (boringly) define it.
Then, we have to open the class (since it isn't open by default).
A more "pleasant: interface might be like this:
ctypes mode_t
requires
Posix_headers::sys_types_h
with
Eq { fun == : mode_t * mode_t -> bool = "$1==$2"; },
Bits
;
This only makes sense for a class with a single type parameter.
Here the "open" is automatic.
This is "Kind of Object Oriented" in that the properties of a type can be
specified
with the type.
--
john skaller
skal...@users.sourceforge.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ridiculously easy VDI. With Citrix VDI-in-a-Box, you don't need a complex
infrastructure or vast IT resources to deliver seamless, secure access to
virtual desktops. With this all-in-one solution, easily deploy virtual
desktops for less than the cost of PCs and save 60% on VDI infrastructure
costs. Try it free! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Citrix-VDIinabox
_______________________________________________
Felix-language mailing list
Felix-language@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/felix-language
